GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

August 11, 2013

More Wool Pulling!

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

Several agenda items set down for next Tuesday deserve comment. We will dissect the secret Amendment C110 once it is made public and the schedules are released. It’s worth repeating that this entire episode was devised and implemented without any community input and without any notification whatsoever. So much for claims of transparency and accountability from all concerned.

Records of Assembly

Two council meetings on we have yet to see the response to Delahunty’s request for a report on Notice of Motion. However, there is one mention of ‘meeting procedures’ in the records of assembly so we can only wonder whether this is another instance of requests for reports NOT being tabled in an ordinary council meeting and instead going behind closed doors. An old Newtonian trick!
Councillors code of conduct – what further draconian measures will be attempted or will there be some positive changes?
Cr Delahunty – a response she has received from the Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) in relation to matters raised concerning the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust. May also need to consider referring the matters to the Ombudsman Victoria.
Cr Hyams – advised councillors in general terms about the deliberations of the Caulfield Racecourse Rserve Trust including on(sic) the progress of the leases.
Cr Sounness – Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust – lack of accessibility to the minutes of the Trust.

Comment: what a ludicrous situation! 3 councillor trustees who owe their first allegiance we’ve been told to the Racecourse group, yet sitting, listening and undoubtedly discussing how the Trust is a secret organisation not acting in accordance with governance guidelines. This is definitely Monty Python territory!

PUBLISHING OF SUBMISSIONS

We note again the lack of consistency by this council in making available public submissions that do not come under Section 223 of the Local Government Act (ie submissions on budget, council plan, local law, etc). The most important public responses are NOT MADE PUBLIC and incorporated into council minutes. Residents did not see the full submissions to the Planning Scheme Review of 2010 – although this is now the basis for the argument that there was extensive consultation and council is following the community viewpoint. What is made public are responses to issues that are far less controversial such as Toilet Strategy and now the Environmental Sustainability Strategy.

The extent of consultation is another inconsistency and a means of limiting public involvement – as well as achieving the desired and preset outcomes. The controversial Caulfield Park conservatory matter (which thus far has cost over $17,000) only managed to achieve the doctored ‘survey’ in both hard copy and on the Bang The Table online version. Others (less controversial and likely to draw only a minority of comments) have included a methodology that is far more expansive.

QUARTERLY REPORTING

No mention of C110
Statistics on DPC versus Council Resolution on planning applications are meaningless since the chart only reports on VCAT appeals. Further, there is no information provided on the decisions and the nature of the application, nor its location. Nor are residents any wiser as to why 37 were decided by the DPC and only 1 went to full council. The criteria, as always, is nebulous, vague, and lacks transparency and accountability.
Action plan related to the Council Plan continually fails to respond to the original measures indicated in the Community/Council Plan. For example: the original resolution stated that council was to provide numbers for dwellings in Housing Diversity/Minimal Change. This now becomes a meaningless percentage. Of greater import is the following:

Objective: Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.

Measure: Reduce the number of applications being referred to DPC for a decision by trialling a mediation process and report the results to Council. Provide an information video which explains the DPC role and purpose for the benefit of residents involved.

Progress June 2013: DPC Video has been finalised and is being shown to participants prior to meetings. 14 successful mediation meetings held and THUS NOT NEEDING A DPC OR COUNCIL DECISION BY RESOLUTION

Comment: How a video can achieve ‘transparency’ in all of town planning when it focuses on ‘mediation’ is mind boggling. The statistical validity of 14 ‘mediations’ also leaves us scratching our heads. Note – we’re not told how many were ‘unsuccessfully mediated’!

Our favourite mangling is:

Objective: Investigate ways of making proceedings for Council meetings easier to follow including the use of audio-visual technology.

Measure: Investigation completed

Progress: – Completed

Will this ‘investigation’ ever see the light of public scrutiny? We seriously doubt it!

ACTION PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

We highlight some of the officers’ responses to resident submissions:

Instead of introducing Environmental Sustainability policies into its planning scheme, council’s response was to produce a glossy booklet. When asked how effective such a booklet has been, this is the response: Council reviews publications on a regular basis. There are no plans to monitor whether recommendations are taken up because of the resource intensive nature of this.

In other words, let’s waste money producing something and then not worry about whether that money has been well spent since we don’t have the foggiest as to whether it’s serving its purpose!

July 24, 2013

Community Consultation & The Veracity of ‘Minutes’

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

Below is the ‘debate’ on accepting the various committees’ ‘minutes’ and their recommendations. We’ve focused on the Community Consultation ones.

Delahunty moved to accept and seconded by Lobo.

DELAHUNTY: stated that the consultation committee ‘sets the standards‘ for consultation and seeks to ‘widen, broaden, deepen’ and make consultation ‘appropriate’ so it’s an ‘important committee’. Related what had been discussed: terms of reference; and EOI from people wanting to be community reps as well as reviewing engagement strategy. Said that one submission from a resident was ‘very helpful’ (on disability). Vouched that this ‘was a true and accurate’ record of what happened at the meeting.

LOBO: said that 4 EOIs had been received by council. One was from a ‘very senior’ and ‘experienced resident’ and was in the ‘format’ that they were asked to submit. Went on to say that there were no ‘qualifications’ or ‘requisites’ given to people. Claimed that the committee decision was to ‘hold the applications on ice’ until advertising again. Said that in his view it’s the ‘right of ratepayers’ to both ‘represent the community’ and ‘contribute to a council that they finance and pay our salaries’. People who apply are community minded and spend ‘their own time’ in the effort to ‘make a difference’. Re-advertising creates the impressions that ‘we are not a transparent council’. Community reps for this committee is different to the environmental one where some professional expertise is required. Quoted Ghandi about ‘greatness’ and no correlation to ‘education’ and that these applications should be ‘viewed’ in the same way. “Barriers’ to ‘perceived transparency’ have to be removed. Asked the rhetorical question as to precisely what they’re looking for – ‘a rocket scientist’, ‘psychiatrist’ or ‘a doctor of philosophy’. The Local Government Act compels councillors to act ‘impartially’ in carrying out their duties. Said that these would be ‘just words’ if not acted upon.

OKOTEL: spoke about the Violence against Women day and how council supports two groups in this area.

HYAMS: told the gallery that with this motion it’s not just about receiving and noting the minutes but also ‘adopting the recommendations’ so if councillors agree with Lobo that council shouldn’t be readvertising for community reps ‘they would vote against this motion’. Said that he didn’t think that readvertising was a ‘slight’ on those who applied and that they had hoped to ‘attract a slightly broader range of applicants’. Readvertising was ‘just a way of trying to achieve a broader range’ and doesn’t mean that those who already submitted won’t be selected. Went on to discuss the grants committee.

DELAHUNTY: endorsed Hyams comments on the Legal Service then went on to say that the minutes ‘tell the story’ of how council is ‘spending your money’ and they also tell the story about issues being discussed and ‘values and how we impart those values onto things we deem to be important’. People need to ‘keep track of these minutes’ and ensure that councillors are ‘held to account’ and ‘not discussing ourselves’ in these meetings and ‘not having a go at each other’. All that’s happening is ‘we’re discussing the issues and doing what local government’ should be doing. Finished by saying that some of the things she isn’t proud of but others she is and urged people to read the minutes.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (NOTE: Lipshutz and Magee were absent)

July 23, 2013

Are They Worth $300,000+ Per Annum?

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

Residents have every right to question why we are paying over $300,000 per annum for a bunch of councillors who continually fail to fulfil their legal and representative roles. Glen Eira councillors, as evidenced at tonight’s meeting are entirely superfluous to the running of council.

Tonight was an absolute talk fest. Phrases such as ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ were repeated ad nauseum – perhaps in the false belief that repeating such terms has some correlation to the lack of transparency and accountability that is the hallmark and most distinguishing feature of this council.

We will report in detail in the days ahead. However, the lowlights are:

Not one single word about delegations and how councillors are literally unnecessary appendages in the entire process when all control and power is delegated to officers. Not one word about councillor ‘call-in’ and not one word about how nebulous and vague the criteria which govern decision making for the Delegated Planning Committee is.
Public questions and the non-answers were again allowed to go through to the keeper with no councillor making any comment on any of the responses
No questioning of the community consultation terms of reference, except for Pilling’s aside that it appears to be different to other committees’ terms of reference. Lobo waxed lyrical regarding the selection of the community reps, implying that he was opposed to re-advertising, and then voted to accept.
An admission that the Open Space Review has not yet landed in the arms of councillors, but officers somehow manage to include some points from the review in the report on the ABC potential land sale.

July 19, 2013

Agenda: Delegations & Community Reps

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

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature several important items

DELEGATIONS

Once again councillors are largely sidelined when it comes to planning matters and the most important powers are ceded to officers. We reiterate what we’ve said in the past:

No councillor ‘call-in’ on applications – ie. countless other councils deem it essential that a councillor be given the right to insist that a planning application be decided by a full council rather than 3 bureaucrats as happens in Glen Eira under the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) structure
The criteria for determination remains vague and unquantified. For example: the Schedule to the DPC states that this committee may decide upon applications when “There has been significant objection/s in terms of substance or number received to an application, amendment or any other matter”. Precisely what ‘significant’ entails is of course not stated. Are we talking 5 objections, 10 objections, 50 objections? We note again that numerous other councils specify the number of objections that will automatically see the application go to a full council meeting.
There are other nebulous phrases contained in this schedule for the DPC: ‘significant departure from policy”. Again, what does significant mean in this context, and who is to decide? Certainly not councillors!
We refer readers to a previous post where the significance of such delegations is outlined in greater depth: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/delegations-the-glen-eira-way/
We also note that Newton’s spending power has now reached $750,000. This amount does not require a council resolution!

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

The farce of ‘consultation’ in Glen Eira continues with the minutes for this meeting. The positions for community reps will be readvertised since according to the spin – “The committee discussed the lack of diversity of applicants in relation to young people and families and thought that it was important to seek applicants from a broader range of community members.” Strange that we happen to know of at least 2 applications from well versed residents who just happen to also be ‘family’ members with young children. Their ‘rejection’ has more to do with whom council doesn’t want representing the community voice than with whom they do want. Intelligent, articulate, and pro-community people we suspect would be anathema to the powers that be!

There’s also a paragraph on the review of the overall consultation strategy itself. We find the following particularly relevant: “In section on engagement tools and techniques include: disadvantage to meetings and forums as ‘can be dominated by interest groups, and disadvantage of social media as ‘individuals may submit multiple times’. Does this augur the demise of ‘multiple methods’ of community consultation?

Finally, the proposed terms of reference for the committee when it is eventually reconstituted with community reps includes the rider that VOTING POWER will only be granted to councillors! Reps will be selected on ‘agreed criteria’. Of course, these criteria remain top secret!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

See the following as items of real interest:

“Cr Lipshutz – a development in Inkerman Road that has a Condition requiring that a laneway be properly made that will cost the developer. Asked that this Condition be reviewed.”

“Cr Delahunty – advised that she had met with the Chairperson of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust who had updated her on thek Trust’s current deliberations. Said that she understood that there is nothing preventing the Councillor Trustee members keeping the full Cpouncillor group updated on the Trust’s deliberations.”

Readers should also peruse the report on the ABC studios site and its potential sale for residential development.

PS: A very quick search has revealed some further fascinating comparisons between Glen Eira Council and its neighbours regarding the delegation to the CEO. Unlike Glen Eira, these other councils have imposed certain limitations on the powers of their CEOs. Glen Eira appears to set no limits!

Stonnington – without the concurrence of the Mayor communicated to the delegate at a meeting or conference convened by him or the Mayor for the purpose of informal discussion (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/your-council/about-council/council-delegations/)

Bayside – If the issue, action, act or thing is an issue, action, act or thing which involves:

4.1 awarding a contract exceeding the value of $300,000 for an annual capital works contract;

4.2 awarding a contract exceeding $100,000 per annum for the supply of goods and services for a period exceeding 5 years;

4.3 approving a contract variation that exceeds 20% of the original contract sum, where the original contract sum is $250,001 or greater;

(http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/10.15_Instrument_of_Delegation_to_CEO_-_2013.pdf)

Boroondara – A new power to acquire or dispose of other interests in land to the value of $500,000 or less (excluding GST) is inserted.

Under the existing delegation, the Chief Executive Officer also has the power to vary contracts which were approved by Council. The power is conditional upon expenditure limits, being: [if] the value of the contract is greater than $500,000, the aggregate value of the contract (taking into account the value of expenditure for the further term and the value of the variation) may not increase by more than or 10% or $100,000 whichever is lesser.

(http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Your%20Council/Meetings%20and%20Agendas/Council/20130527/Report7%20Instruments%20of%20Delegation.pdf)

Monash – Increase the maximum value of contracts that can be awarded by the Chief Executive Officer, to $250,000.

(http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/reports/pdftext/cp28may13/6.1.pdf)

July 4, 2013

Public Questions: Hide & Seek!

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

The tradition of Glen Eira Council not responding to public questions in an open, honest, and forthright manner continues. Specifics are ignored, even though the questions focus on specifics; sniping when possible is taken full advantage of, instead of treating all residents with respect. This is par for the course.

But, what is happening far more frequently is the inexcusable failure to read out and answer all questions that have been submitted. We know of at least 3 questions that were submitted via email and the internet for last Tuesday. None of these were read out – they simply did not exist. There was no mention of them on any grounds under the ‘inadmissable’ section of the Local Law. Other questions in the past have been deposited at the front desk, received the requested ‘receipt’ and were clearly marked as ‘public questions’. These also failed to show up at council meetings. For an organisation that continually trumpets its marvellous efficiency, we find it extremely difficult to believe that these questions were not received by council.

So what can we conclude? That all of these questions just happened to disappear? That we are having a plague of ‘clerical errors’? That the fortune that is spent on council computer systems may just be a dud? That there is major inefficiency within the ranks? Or simply, that council did not want these questions in the public domain and they certainly didn’t want to answer them?

It’s also worth reporting on what occurred following the reading out of SOME of the submitted questions:

PILLING: asked whether there are any ‘outstanding questions’ – in particular from one resident.

BURKE: ‘As far as I know’ Burke claimed there weren’t.

HYAMS: then said that there was one question that was read out that they hadn’t received in the normal form because the resident then emailed again to reinforce that she had submitted the question.

BURKE: since Mr xxxxx was ‘actually in the audience’ Burke wanted to remind him of a conversation they had a ‘few months back’ where the resident thought ‘he sent a couple of items in’ but they weren’t received and that when the resident checked his Sent-Box ‘you couldn’t find them either’.

RESIDENT: stated that he had resent them but would have to double check if they went to the ‘right address’.

HYAMS: welcomed the resident resubmitting. Delahunty then interceded.

DELAHUNTY: Asked whether the resident could ask his ‘question now‘.

HYAMS: (Quite flummoxed at this point) ‘Well….generally, the Local Law’ (more mumble, mumble) determines what might be considered out of order and – that was not to suggest that what the resident was asking out of order, but there was the issue of ‘precedence’. Also ‘the chances of getting an answer now’ would be small. ‘So we will move on’!

COMMENT: God forbid that this council sets a ‘precedent’! In fact, it wouldn’t be a precedent since according to the Local Law the chairman is able to do wondrous things at his discretion. The bottom line is that this has got nothing to do with the Local Law and everything to do with Hyams and this council’s terror in permitting residents to speak their minds, offer a view, or even ask a question that might just get a more honest response from the spin doctors without the necessary time to fudge, dissemble, and deflect.

Our next post will illustrate why none of the questions asked received an answer!

July 3, 2013

The Alma Club Decision

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

It was standing room only at tonight’s council meeting which was taken full advantage of by most councillors with further academy award performances by several. Here’s a brief summary of what occurred apart from the Alma Club application which is reported on in full –

Alma Club development rejected unanimously
Lipshutz arguments totally inconsistent and arrogant
Delahunty threw down the gauntlet regarding a request for a report on Notice of Motion and other aspects of the Local Law Meeting Procedures. Newton was looking decidedly uncomfortable.
Hyams could not help himself once again with personal attacks on a resident and a former councillor, plus of course, allusions to this blog!
Sounness remains a major concern, and Okotel appears way out of her depth. Esakoff was absent again.
Not one councillor uttered the word planning or traffic management when it came to how wonderful the Community Satisfaction Survey was despite the fact that the gap between ‘importance’ and ‘performance’ had grown in some crucial areas.
Public questions remained unanswered, or even worse, lost in the ether somewhere – for the second council meeting running!

ALMA CLUB DEVELOPMENT

Magee moved the motion to reject on several grounds: minimal change area, size, bulk, traffic, neighbourhood character, landscaping, lack of sunlight for dwellings, etc. Seconded by Lipshutz

MAGEE: asked Akehurst to ‘explain’ why the application has already ended up at VCAT

AKEHURST: started off by saying that under the law councils had 60 days to make the decision regardless of the complexity of the proposal. This one wasn’t ‘minor’ or simple and because of the ‘sheer amount of referrals’ to various departments that caused the delay. The planning conference and its organisation also caused a delay and this was something that council didn’t have to do, but council does it anyway because ‘it provides an opportunity for residents to better understand the application and express their views’. This ‘throws’ some time into the process of ‘getting a decision’. He then went on to ‘conjecture’ and thought it ‘fair to say’ that the developer had ‘read the tea leaves’ and guessed that it would end up at VCAT so he probably ‘thought let’s stand in the VCAT queue’ and that’s the reason for this ‘failure appeal’. Claimed that this was ‘good news’ from council’s and residents’ viewpoints since he didn’t think there was any ‘disadvantage to what council does’ about its position. Said that council still has to ‘form a view’ and that all this means is that council doesn’t have to ‘formalise’ its view and that will be the view presented at VCAT.

MAGEE: said that developers have a ‘right to develop land’ and if this was in a different area, bigger street, then ‘it would be fine’. Claimed it ‘would suit Dandenong Rd’ and other areas in Glen Eira. But it ‘doesn’t suit a street that’s a dead end’. Claimed that he’d sat in his car in Wilks St for about 45 minutes and that he ‘didn’t see a lot of traffic’ but that he would ‘hate this development to be in my street’. Admitted that none of the councillors are town planners or experts and all they do is ‘look at the information we’re given’ and then they make a ‘judgement call’. Councillors after all are only ‘mums and dads’ and they judge ‘things on what is acceptable’ and what should be ‘imposed on others’. Said that they’re there to listen and sometimes they make decisions that aren’t popular but this one is ‘easy’. Councillors at last election said they wouldn’t support inappropriate development and ‘this is an imappropriate development’. Finally it’s not the ‘right development for the right street’. (applause).

LIPSHUTZ: started with what he’s always said that ‘I won’t make a decision because it’s a popular decision. I will make a decision because I believe it is the right decision’. People have told him that they voted for him and now he should do what they say but ‘I won’t do that, I’ll do what is right’. Said that he looked at the plans, the site, and thought it was a ‘good development for the site’ because it was large and was going to be developed anyway. Said that he’d been ‘contacted about 50 or 60 times’ by residents and had emails, phone calls, letters, and ‘many of them I disregarded’ because he didn’t ‘think they were valid’. In the end he did what Magee did by asking himself if he was living there ‘would I want this in my street’ and decided ‘I wouldn’t’. Also thought that if they reject and it goes to VCAT then VCAT ‘won’t have anything in-between’ and thought that councillors could still seek to ‘modify’ the development and it will be developed but ‘it has to be appropriate development’. Said he wasn’t ‘convinced’ by arguments about looking at a wall across from houses because the set backs allow it. Also wasn’t convinced that ‘there may be flooding’ because that’s a building issue and ‘not a planning issue’. Traffic also wasn’t convincing because if you’ve got 73 apartments or 50 apartments ‘you’re going to have traffic’. Said that council would probably make this non residential parking permits for the units. Said he was ‘concerned about the mass and the bulk’ since it was ‘too big, too large’ and inappropriate. Said he represents ‘you as residents’ and that he’s ‘got to do what is right’ and ‘not popular’ but here ‘it’s probably both’. Went on to say he was concerned about ‘mischief making’ by some people for claiming that ‘this wouldn’t have happened’ if council had bought the land. Claimed that ‘it was never offered to council’…’council was never going to buy this development’…’it was never offered to council’. Said that council wouldn’t spend 8 million to buy the site and that it is ‘an inappropriate place for a park’. Said that ‘it was always going to be a development site’.

DELAHUNTY: spoke to the gallery saying that they are a wonderful community group and hoped that their opposition would continue and that she’d been told that people had met each other and that’s what ‘community groups are about’. Went on to pay her respects to the work done by the community on this and to Cheryl Forge who was present. Said that all of the points people wrote were ‘well made’ and even though ‘they may feel flippant’ to some other councillors they do ‘impact’ on people’s lives. The points people raised ‘informed our discussions’ and officer reports and her decision to reject the application. The main question was whether the application is ‘appropriate to the site’ and most agree that it isn’t. Even though the officers’ report tried to make this more appropriate she still ‘rejects the premise of the argument’ – that it can be ‘intense development’. Instead of ‘fiddling’ with the proposal via conditions and since they’re not experts then it ‘makes sense’ to reject it. Said that her job as councillor is to ‘bring together the objectives of the planning scheme and your views’. She quoted from the planning scheme about ‘protecting the liveability’ of residents and ‘amenity of Glen Eira’ and any new development ‘provides a high level of amenity’. Admitted that ‘amenity’ was hard to define but it also included parks and as far as as 1998 the old Open Space strategy noted the lack of open space in this area of the municipality. Another statement from this old plan was to be continually on the lookout to acquire more open space ‘so I don’t think it’s mischief making to wonder whether or not Council seriously considered’ buying the land. It’s too late now and ‘nothing’ can be done (applause). Told people ‘never to feel’ that their participation has ‘been a waste of time’ and ‘don’t listen to anyone who tells you that’…’even if those people are sitting around this table’….your participation in this process is what gives our argument validity’. Residents put councillors in their position to ‘carry your arguments forward’. (applause).

SOUNNESS; said if the site was ‘elsewhere’ it might be okay but not where it was in a minimal change area. He would love council to be able to say we’d love only ‘so many units’ but they can’t since it ‘would become unrecognisable’ from its ‘current form’. ‘I’d like to say 20 is enough, 2 storeys is enough’ but ‘we can’t do that’ only respond’ to what has been submitted. When the VCAT hearing come up ‘there will have to be negotiations’. Hoped that there would be ‘a satisfactory outcome down the line’.

LOBO: started off by reading from the Local Government act talking about the role of council to ensure the ‘long term’ benefits for residents. Said the development was ‘an eve of destruction’ and that its ‘intensity’ would ruin ‘neighbourhood character’ and have impact ‘long after the developer has disappeared with a fortune’. (applause). Said that residents need to be ‘looked after’ because they pay their rates and pay for the councillors ‘including the Mayor and all the officers’. ‘Our duty of care and loyalty must be towards our masters and that is you in the gallery’. The development will be an ‘eyesore’ and building it will be like ‘establishing the second alcatraz prison’. Mentioned a couple of permits granted to places in Wilks st – such as a doctors rooms and another 2 unit lot so the impact of traffic and parking is already felt. Said that people are wondering why there isn’t such development ‘on the other side of the road’ in Stonnington, ‘they feel that Glen Eira is a soft target to the developers’ when compared to Stonnington. Houses will be overshadowed and that will affect the existing solar panels on some. ‘This monstrosity of a development’ will cause ‘stress’. Said that ResCode was a ‘joke’ with its parking quotas. The development could have 125 cars and comparing this to what the traffic was when the club was operating is like the second ‘coming of David and Goliath’. Constructionww ould also create ‘chaos’. Let the State Government ‘have blood on their hands’ and the ‘madness of development’. (applause).

OKOTEL: others had already spoken well and ‘eloquently’. For here 2 issues – minimal change area and an ‘overdevelopment’ and ‘inappropriate development’. Said there were ‘technical defects’ like ‘overlooking’ and ‘lack of natural light’ and ‘landscaping of area’. Therefore there are ‘many reasons’ why the application should fail. (applause).

HYAMS: started off by saying that ‘council’s role is not to necessarily represent the people’.Rather they are a ‘quasi-judicial body’ and have to look at planning law. He decides on how he thinks the planning law should ‘be interpreted’. Trouble with saying that they represent the people is that if there is an objection then they’d have to vote with that objection ‘so nothing would ever get through’. ‘So we do need to be responsible’. His decision is ‘therefore based on planning law’. Said it wasn’t an ‘easy decision’ and that he could understand the officers and their recommendations. Saw the ‘major stumbling block’ that it was in a minimal change area but there’s an ‘exception’ if it’s a large block which this is. Said that people who live in a minimal change area have the ‘right to expect’ that there be town houses next to them but not something like this. He would prefer subdivision into houses but ‘it’s not our role to tell the applicant what to do’. Said that a public question asked about the VCAT appeal and when council found out about it. He provided the answer here even though public questions swere usually held at the end. Said that the 60 days ended on June 17th; the appeal was lodged on 21st June and council were notified on the 26th June. Went on to explain that VCAT will now come back to council and ask them to provide a set of conditions for what might be acceptable if they would contemplate giving a permit but this still doesn’t negate council’s opposition to the permit, it will just be a ‘draft permit’ with ‘conditions’.

Went on to answer some of the questions raised at the planning conference. Drainage is part of the building permit so not ‘ignored’. Parking permits would also be banned. Named one individual who had said that Glen Eira is the ‘fastest growing municipality’. He didn’t want people to think that they’re cramming people in so got the ‘census figures’ and ‘there are 17 that grow faster than us’ and ’13 that grow less fast’. Claimed that population had increased by 5.5% and Whyndham had increase by over 40% and Port Phillip and Yarra had also increased more than Glen Eira. Said that it was also ‘suggested that we do nothing to protect our residents from overdevelopment’ but that Glen Eira does have a minimal change policy and ‘that does a lot to protect’ people.‘So it’s a shame that someone who didn’t really have a connection to this application felt the need to come in and say things like that’. Went on to talk about the purchase of the site and said that ‘there was an offer put to us’ to pay off the 3 million debt but ‘we wouldn’t have had the site’ because ‘to buy it would have cost 8 million’ and then redeveloping it another ‘couple of million more’. They also didn’t think that this site was appropriate for a park since they want parks to be ‘more accessible to the community’ but this one was ‘down a narrow one way street’. Said he was ‘surprised’ that Forge suggested this since in her ‘election campaign’ said that ‘our debt was unmanageable and there should be no rate rises’ but still find 10 million for this one. Wished everyone ‘luck’ at VCAT.

MAGEE: disagreed with what Hyams said about Forge since she has always been an ‘advocate’ for ‘financial management’ and always did things with ‘the best conscience’ and ‘best intentions’ whilst a councillor and that ‘she’s still a good friend of mine’. Went on to give advice to developer that it should ‘improve the amenity of the street’ and that it shouldn’t ‘set the amenity’. They have potential to set precedents but change has to ‘enhance’ and not reduce amenity. (applause)

June 28, 2013

Agenda Items: Plagiarism & Secrecy!

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

ALMA CLUB APPLICATION

As expected, the officer’s (Ron Torres) report recommends that a permit be issues for “up to 73 dwellings in an apartment style 3 storey building and townhouse style development of 2-3 storeys above basement car parking and a reduction in visitor car parking requirements….”. There were 58 formal objections.

It is worth commenting that this report contains much that is taken verbatim from the developer’s application. As to lighting and internal amenity there does not seem to be any problem in having people live underground – “It is considered the ground floor north facing apartments will have poor solar access as their floor level is substantially lower than the ground level at the northern boundary. Their living room windows are also substantially overhung by the balconies above. Therefore a condition is recommended to setback the first floor balconies to improve the amenity of these dwellings”.

On traffic and its impact on local and adjoining streets we have this: “…the expected traffic generation can be considered in the context of the traffic generated by the Alma Club (when it was operational). Therefore, whilst there will be a noticeable increase in traffic during residential peak times (ie weekday mornings), there will also likely be less traffic at other times when the Alma Club would have generated traffic, such as weekends. Furthermore, Council’s Transport Planning Department is satisfied Wilks Street can accommodate the traffic generated by the development. On balance it is considered an increase in traffic movements within Wilks Street as a result of this development is not unreasonable”.

Not one statistic to support any of the statements! And since when does 5 days of traffic twice a day compare to a declining club membership that is assessed only on weekends? Nor is there any mention of the major arterial roads that run off Wilks St and the safety issues involved. The only change that is advantageous to the community is the recommendation that a 5% open space levy be paid by the developer instead of the 4.75% that had been ‘agreed’ to previously.

All in all another dodgy officer’s report without substance, detail, and a far too heavy reliance on the proposal as submitted by developers. Surely when the community pays their wages it is not too much to expect that officer reports show some initiative and originality plus, providing a substantiated rationale for their decision making that is not authored by the developer.

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

First off we note that the online version of agenda has repeated one of the ‘minutes’ – meaning that one document is missing! The trend of secrecy continues unabated however. Notations included in these documents reveal that important issues that will have a major impact on the community HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED but not one word has come out into the public domain concerning these issues. For example:

Residential zones – at least 3 times
Referendum of Constitutional Recognition of local government
MAV state conference – list of motions. Again residents have no idea of council’s position on any of the proposed motions.
There’s another couple of interesting items that read – “Cr Hyams – letter to the editor in the Australian Jewish News from a Labor Federal member of Parliament. Need for a Council response to correct the record.” AND – “Cr Hyams – draft letter to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust relating to members of the public attending and addressing the Trust.” (Please note that Delahunty had raised this issue in a previous meeting); “Cr Hyams – a meeting of the non MRC Trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.”
GESAC and dispute resolution also gets a nod as well as in the Audit Committee report.

Finally it’s worth mentioning the item recommending the rescission of the Sustainability Policy and enacting a new policy. We have noted several times in the past that the arguments put forward by Hyams and Burke (when it suited them) was that nothing could be done UNLESS IT WAS CONTAINED IN THE MEETING PROCEDURES. There is no facility in the meeting procedures for a rescission of motion! If the argument is to be applied consistently, then this recommendation cannot proceed. But of course in this council we can only expect some glib sleight of hand to justify actions that suit the ultimate objectives!

PS: Also along familiar lines there is Newton’s report on the latest Community Satisfaction Survey. The entire report is NOT included in the agenda papers. Rather we’re told that it is available on council’s website. Unfortunately to locate the report will involve a ‘hide and seek’ expedition! The vital aspect of the survey focuses on residents’ expectations as to service performance and their grading of this performance. Below is the relevant information and we point out that once again the huge discrepancy between what residents consider as important and their evaluation of the actual service.

PPS: We’ve commented on this previously but given the deceptive reporting of the VCAT decisions it is worth re-iterating. For the 20 Hawthorn Rd application which was overturned by VCAT, council writes:

“Council determined to refuse the application as it failed to satisfy the intent and objectives of the Minimal Change Area Policy, in terms of excessive visual bulk and poor interface with the adjoining residential properties. The development
also failed to satisfy a number of the ResCode standards ‘.

Not only is this entirely disingenuous, but not does represent what the member actually concluded. In fact, Council itself ‘stuffed up’ big time. It did not even know the areas that were Minimal Change as opposed to Housing Diversity. Here’s what the member concluded:

There is little doubt in my mind that the subject land is in a housing diversity area under local planning policy. As the purpose of local planning policies is to give effect to the municipal strategic statement (MSS),^[1] it is relevant to start with the MSS. The MSS includes a Framework Plan the purpose of which is to ‘support and promote’ specific land use outcomes.^[2] The Framework Plan, although indicative, includes the subject land as an area along a tram route where ‘multi unit development will be encouraged’.^[3] The MSS adopts a targeted approach to meeting future housing needs. It encourages multi-unit housing in identified housing diversity areas. Land along tram routes is a housing diversity area.
The housing diversity area policy confirms the subject land is in a tram routes housing diversity area, having regard to the Glen Eira ‘policy framework plan’ and the Caulfield North ‘Framework Plan’.^[4] I will return the specifics of the tram routes policy shortly.
That the subject land is in a housing diversity area is confirmed by the minimal change area policy.^[5] The policy was recently remade with amendments in Amendment C87 of the scheme (C87). The Council exhibited C87 before deciding this permit application. In the ‘Policy Framework Plan Minimal Change Areas’ map in the scheme when C87 was exhibited and in C87 shows the subject land not in a minimal change area. C87 was approved and commenced on 31 January 2013 and after the Council decided the permit application. It did not change the identification of the subject land as in a minimal change area in that map. In other words, C87 has not changed the identification of the subject land as not being in a minimal change area.
I refer to this history because the Council assessed the permit application as if the relevant policy was the minimal change area policy rather than the housing diversity area policy. This was an error. The Council has now decided that the identification of the subject land as not in a minimal change area for policy purposes was a ‘mapping error within clause 22.08 mistakenly introduced in Amendment C87’,^[6] and has prepared Amendment C108 to correct the ‘error’.

June 16, 2013

Community Plan Versus Council Plan

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

No submissions were received on the ‘Community/Council Plan’ or the Strategic Resource Plan. Here’s what the councillors said.

LIPSHUTZ: noted that no submissions were received on the Council Plan and Strategic Resource plan so the ‘motion’ stands.

DELAHUNTY: Began by saying that in Glen Eira the terms Council Plan and Community Plan were interchangeable and that she ‘disagrees with this practice’. Said that the ‘community plan is the community plan’ and the council plan is a ‘separate document to that’. The council plan ‘outlines’ what council ‘intends to do’ but it’s based on community ideas of ‘what we should be doing’. Went on to say that if they had done it like other councils then maybe there would have been some submissions. Thought that ‘it is confusing’ the way it is presented ‘at the moment’ and ‘not in step with any other council’ and that ‘we are underselling ourselves’ if council doesn’t believe it can ‘strategically plan out our term in office’. Supported the motion because it is ‘true’ that there were no submissions but she doesn’t support the process that lead to the motion.

HYAMS: Said that he liked calling what was going to be done for the community the ‘community plan’ rather than ‘council plan’. Said that what council does is ‘put them both together and incorporate’ what the community wants into the council plan. Didn’t think that ‘having this delineation’ stopped people from putting in submissions and that people weren’t that ‘pedantic’. Whilst ‘disappointing’ that no submissions were forwarded that this could be seen as ‘a vote of confidence from the public’ and that ‘people tend to be more involved in things they’re not happy with’. Said that council would ‘continue to consult with the community’ and that they would ‘take on board anything they tell us’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

June 7, 2013

Snails & Glaciers

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

The snail’s pace of innovation, or simply change at Glen Eira, is exemplified by several items in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting.

LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE MINUTES

The Tree Register is still a work in progress after years and years of talking
Organised sport under section 326 still requires further ‘amendments’ – again 8 years down the track
Alcohol Free Zones in Bentleigh. We must admit to loving the convoluted logic in this one.

The committee discussed the implementation of an alcohol free zone in the Bentleigh shopping strip area. It was considered that behaviour under the influence of alcohol was a matter for the Police, not for local government. No further action.

Readers will remember that this issue has been on the agenda for at least 3 years now. More to the point, Councils have the responsibility of introducing the alcohol free zone via their planning scheme as they did with the Caulfield Racecourse zone. Other councils (ie Kingston recently) seem to believe that public safety and security come first and have introduced such zones in the past year. Glen Eira continually passes the buck. Introducing such as zone is not a police matter – it is 100% in Council’s purview.

We also question the ‘no further action’ take. How a minority set of councillors can make such a recommendation prior to full discussion and debate in council chamber is unbelievable. Given that the practice in Glen Eira is simply to ‘accept’ all committee recommendations this will probably become ‘law’ but without full and open discussion. The community deserves far better. What are the real facts? What are the statistics? Where is the research? How many incidents have occurred in this area? Where is the transparency and accountability?

Finally, there is the following gem ironically listed under ‘other business’. We would have thought that the following item represents the core business of this committee!

Possible review of all of Council’s Local Law with public consultation.

Action – Corporate Counsel to draft report for consideration by full Council regarding a potential review of all of Council’s Local Laws. Report to include introduction of proposed new Local Laws during that process.

We can only presume that this is Glen Eira Speak for the ‘potential’ review of Meeting Procedures with the proviso that it’s a mere ‘maybe’ and that it shouldn’t stop all the other tinkering that is in the pipe line. It’s also worth remembering that the Councillor Questions policy was removed from the 2010 review of the Local Law with the ‘promise’ that the policy would be looked at again. Now three years later, it is still unsighted and rotting in the archives.

There is plenty more in this agenda which needs commenting upon. For this post we will simply conclude with this from the incamera discussions –

12.2 under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution

We again can only surmise that this means some form of payment to individuals/companies etc. It would certainly be welcomed if residents were informed as to whether the issue is now resolved and what the outcomes were!

May 17, 2013

The Show Goes On!

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

Tuesday night’s agenda is definitely geared towards a ‘feel good’ session. We have the Arts & Culture strategy, the Disability strategy and finally the report on River Red Gum maintenance in Glen Eira. Never mind of course that it doesn’t include all the trees that Sounness identified in his Request for a Report. Also, the promised and re-promised tabling of the draft Local Law for May, is still a no show. There are however a few items of interest.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

No community reps were present. In fact, it looks like the 3 sitting reps may have been given the boot since the committee has decided to advertise via expressions of interest and to ‘inform’ current members. It will be fascinating to see if any of the current sitting members re-apply and whether they are given the nod. If not, then will they be given any plausible reason for their ‘departure’?

Delahunty has been ordained as Chairperson, but only after a split vote with Hyams. Here’s what we’re told – Director Community Services called for nominations. Cr Esakoff nominated Cr Hyams; Cr Lobo nominated Dr Delahunty. Following acceptance of nominations a vote was held and the voting was tied. After further discussion it was agreed Councillor Mary Delahunty be appointed as Committee Chairperson, and agreed in principle that the chair would rotate to Cr Hyams after a year

If this isn’t pre-empting a council decision on who will sit on which committees, then we don’t know what is!

Also noteworthy is the ‘review’ of the Engagement Strategy and the stated intent to investigate methodology and VLGA ‘principles’. We wait with bated breath!

PLANNING ZONE REFORMS

Whereas other councils (Whitehorse, Stonnington, Bayside) keep publishing updates on their progress with the Planning Zone Reforms and the likely impact on their municipalities, all residents in Glen Eira get to know is the occasional throw away line in the Records of Assembly. For example:

Cr Okotel – can the MAV assist Councils to understand the new planning zones

Cr – Okotel – new planning zones

Workshop – new planning zones

We remind readers that these new zones come into operation on July 1^st 2013 and Councils have 1 year to ‘adapt’. Within this year other councils are completing or undertaking their Housing Strategy & Neighbourhood Reviews. Glen Eira, we fear, is quite willing to rely on its antiquated data and suspect policies. More importantly, why have residents not been provided with any information since the release of council’s response?

AMENDMENTS

We must take some credit for the following VCAT Watch item. It concerns a decision where council argued that its yet to be advertised Transition Zone Policy should be considered in the application. We took them to task for arguing for something that doesn’t exist as did the member in his decision. In Quarterly Reports we’ve been told that this amendment is ‘on hold’ until the zone reforms come in. Now we’re told – Councillors will recall that the Minister for Planning refused Council’s request for authorisation to place Amendment C90 on public exhibition.

Why we ask? Why wasn’t this information forthcoming at the time with reasons clearly explained? Why argue for this at VCAT when it is KNOWN that the amendment as it stands can’t get to first base? Why can’t residents be told the truth right from the start and, in fact, what is the truth?

PS: please also note that the tree labelled as River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis at Duncan McKinnon plus the very nice photograph (n0 6.) does not exist anymore! IT WAS CHOPPED DOWN EARLIER THIS YEAR. So much for the accuracy, comprehensiveness and full disclosure of this report!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates