GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

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!

May 1, 2013

The Conservatory ‘Debate’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space
[14] Comments

Prior to reporting on this ‘debate’ we wish to highlight these points:

For some councillors the conservatory has been allowed to become ‘dilapidated’. For others it has been ‘preserved’ and ‘fixed up’.
Only one councillor mentioned long term consequences such as ‘water, electricity, sewerage’ if this becomes a cafe. What has not been mentioned is ACCESS to serve a cafe – ie will we have loading bays? will more parkland be ripped up for roads and carparks?
If a cafe, no councillor mentioned outfitting costs and who will pay for this – council or lessee. For example at GESAC $300,000+ was spent on outfitting the cafe!
Lipshutz’s inconsistency continues – in 2011 he called the conservatory ‘an icon’!!!!!!!!

LIPSHUTZ: Read out the officer recommendations. Stated that the conservatory issue is ‘vexed’ and has come up several times. Previous survey was ‘inconclusive’, Said that ‘many people’ including himself have got ‘concepts’ about what should happen including a ‘cafe/tea rooms or other uses’. ‘There’s no suggestion’ that the place would be ‘demolished’. The motion ‘ensures’ that ‘concepts are brought before the community’ and that people can then come to council after ‘consultation’ and then council would decide. Went on to say that there are plenty of ways that this ‘can be used’ such as cafe or simply ‘flowers and gardens’. The conservatory is ‘much loved’ but also ‘maligned’ building and people want to make sure that it’s used properly and that the motion will make this happen. Didn’t want to see ‘a patch up job’ on the place. Important that the ‘community come in and tell us what they want’. Stated that there are ‘beautiful’ areas to the east, then the lake, and the western side which is ‘not used at all’. Wants to see that part ‘developed’ so it ‘can be used for recreation’.

DELAHUNTY: important that community has input to get this ‘right’ but the question is what’s ‘right’. It’s always been her ‘ethos’ that the role of a councillor is to ‘represent’ and there are strong views about this issue and community groups such as Friends of Caulfield Park ‘can inform us’ and ‘own this process’ as to what it will look like down the track and not ‘spend the community’s money’ on what mightn’t ‘be the end result’. Said that previous consultation wasn’t about concepts and ‘possibly didn’t ask the right questions’ nor ‘broad enough’. Thus she thought that ‘we have to take the lead’ and tell people ‘these are the options’ and ‘hoped’ that community groups ‘take hold of this’. They should ‘inform us’ and ‘help us deliver’ the outcomes. Previous survey ‘only heard from 312 people’ and that’s ‘possibly not enough’ and wanted a ‘more ringing endorsement’ about what to do. ‘Will cop’ that this (ie consultation) has been ‘done before’ but ‘let this be the last time’.

PILLING: said that the motion was a ‘mish-mash’, not clear and ‘confusing’. Said that the last resolution was to fix up the conservatory and ‘protect’ it and that this motion just ‘delays that’ . Accepted the ‘good will’ of councillors but said that it should be fixed up and then consult. ‘Opening it up to commercialisation’ is bringing up a ‘can of worms’. Said the motion ‘was confusing everyone’ and that it’s a ‘mish-mash’. Said he was in favour of community groups coming in, but this motion doesn’t ‘seek to do’ that. Also, there’s ‘a precedent here about commercialising our parks’ and mentioned surrounding, existing cafes and competition and ‘that’s not our role’.

MAGEE: admitted that he’d been in favour of a cafe for many years and went past that morning and asking himself ‘how can this go forward’. Then he realised that over the last 4 years he’d been ‘fighting’ the MRC for ‘overcapitalising and commercialising’ crown land. So he felt like a ‘real hypocrite’ because favouring a cafe in the park was ‘exactly what I was criticising others for’. Therefore he ‘can’t support commercial activities on crown land’. Read out the 2011 motion about ‘full restoration’ of the conservatory and then said ‘here we are two years later’ debating about consultation. Said that what they’re trying to do is ‘give back’ to the community what they were given in the seventies. Wanted a ‘full restoration’ and then going back to the people. He ‘liked’ the idea of plants being there. ‘we have to restore it to its former glory’ and remember why it ‘was put there in the first place’…..’I won’t be supporting anything that goes as far as commercialising any land’ in parks.

LOBO: thought about this for a long time and it involves an ‘icon’ in the park. Said he’d visited last week and received ‘half a dozen’ phone calls from people asking ‘not to dilly dally this process’ any longer because it’s already been ‘considered’ on 3 previous occasions – 2006, 2010 and 2011. Said that if they’d already considered the issues when they sent out the survey and only got 312 responses then ‘maybe at the time they did not realise the importance of this place’ . Handing this over to ‘money making’ businesses is akin to the MRC using ‘crown land to make money’ . Council should go ahead with ‘full restoration’. ‘What we are achieving by sending another costly survey is beyond my reasoning’. If the results are similar to previous surveys then it’s ’embarrassing’ and a ‘futile exercise’. Cited Einstein about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a ‘sign of insanity’. When the city is crying out for open space building something on the open space is the opposite. Said that it looks like council is heading down the track of ‘encouraging cafes, two dollar shops and massage parlours’. Wanted to ‘get on with the job or restoring this icon’.

SOUNNESS: stated that this building came from Rippon Lea where they had lovely gardens, much open space, high ceilings. This conservatory in comparison to that is ‘small and squalid’. Accepted that ‘it’s got a lot of history’ but was ‘rejected from Rippon Lea’. The question then becomes what’s the best use? Admitted that ‘I do not know’. Said that this is like grit in the eye in that ‘it’s a small matter for Glen Eira’ – ‘it’s not a GESAC’; it’s a ‘small thing’ but it’s ‘hung around and irritated’ a lot of people. It’s never going to become the best conservatory and win awards. If it’s a teahouse then you’ve got to think about power lines, sewerage, and water and whether ‘this is the best use for our park’. Went on to say it’s a ‘lot of money to spend on something’ if the returns are small either way.

OKOTEL: said that since the last consultation was in 2006 there had been a ‘sufficient gap’ for this now to be ‘relooked at’. Basically repeated the officer’s report on numbers for and against from the 2006 survey. Commented that the petition that also ‘went out’ doesn’t say if those people who signed also filled out the survey so there could have been duplication and she didn’t think that since this was ‘seven years ago we don’t have those records anymore’. Said that in 2006 there was support for a cafe so community recognised that there was need for development and that currently and ‘unfortunately’ the conservatory is ‘falling further and further into dilapidation’. Thought it was important that councillors take into view the community’s wishes and don’t just follow their own perceptions. That they need to ‘take direction from the community’. Hoped that this was true on ‘every issue’ and ‘take direction from consultation we have with the community’. “Consultation is a fundamental job for council to undertake’.

ESAKOFF: ‘looked forward’ to community views even though different comnmunity. Said that the motion ‘opened it up to more opportunity’ and ‘not just a cafe’ but ‘other uses as well’. Responded to Lobo’s comment about 2 dollar shops saying that they wouldn’t survive without community support.

HYAMS: didn’t ‘think’ that this was commercialisation of parks since tea rooms would add to the park by getting people to come into the parks as in other parts of the world. Objective isn’t to ‘work for the benefit of the operator’ but to ‘bring further life to the area’. Said that in 2006 ‘the majority was in favour’ of a cafe. And that with the petition you ‘can’t put the petition on the same level’ as ‘a neutral community survey’. ‘When you put out a neutral question’ via the consultation survey then ‘you get back the response of the community’ which isn’t true for a petition which also doesn’t capture all those people who refused to sign a petition. ‘so all you get is one side of the argument’. Said that the ‘equivalent’ would be like getting the survey and then discarding all those ‘that say they don’t want a cafe’. Said in 2006 council decided to ‘push ahead’ with tendering although ‘for some reason that didn’t proceed’ and in 2010 officers thought it should come ‘to new council’ and then a year later ‘council changed its mind’. So it’s not a question of coming back again and again on the issue until they get the tea room. Said that suggestions to ‘do the work and then consult’ doesn’t make sense because it ‘may well end up as a waste of money’ if people want a ‘tea room’ and they’ve ‘already put on a roof’ that’s appropriate for a ‘green house’.

LIPSHUTZ: compared Lobo’s and Sounness’ comments and ‘wondered whether we’re talking about the same building’ – ‘in this particular case’ he agrees with Sounness. ‘It’s not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. But people are concerned about it and that’s why the motion is as it is.

Argued that the motion isn’t saying ‘commercialising the park’. It says that ‘we may’ if that’s ‘what the community want’. Motion is all about ‘seeking consultation’ about what people want. Also said that ‘we have protected’ the conservatory; ‘we have fixed it up’ and that ‘we’ve done the works’ and that the motion isn’t about ‘protecting’ but ‘deciding where we go from here’. It’s not a ‘mish-mash’ because all it’s saying is going to people and asking what they want. He’s not afraid to say that a cafe is something that he’s wanted for ‘some time’ and that ‘it’s an excellent idea’. ‘Our role’ is to ensure that parks are used to the fullest potential and it’s silly to ‘have open space that nobody uses’. If in the end it’s about flowers then that’s ‘wonderful’ – ‘it’s for the community to decide’. Not enough to think that ‘let’s build it and they will come’. They didn’t build GESAC and then ask the community what they wanted. ‘we came with a concept’ and then invited the community. ‘This is what this motion is all about’. ‘It is not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. ‘Let’s get the community involved and end it once and for all’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED 5 TO 4.

April 30, 2013

Tonight’s Voting!

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

CAULFIELD PARK CONSERVATORY

Lipshutz moved the motion to accept recommendations. Delahunty seconded. The final vote went 5 to 4 to accept motion.

In favour: Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Delahunty, Okotel

Against: Lobo, Pilling, Sounness, Magee

We will report on the ‘debate’ in the days ahead.

Item 9.1 – Railway Cresc. application

Esakoff moved motion that instead of 3 storeys and 10 dwellings this be reduced to 3 storeys and 8 dwellings plus including a visitor car park. Lipshutz seconded. Even though Lobo spoke against the motion, the final vote in favour was unanimous.

April 26, 2013

Business As Usual!

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

Some very, very interesting items on the agenda!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

Once again it takes 3 council meetings for the Records of Assembly from early March to be placed in the public domain. A few things to note:

On three separate occasions there was the notation that “the CEO left the Room.” Once concerned the CEO KPIs but the other two items stated: “Compliance with the Local Government Act.” What is going on? More lawyers? More expense? More witch hunts? And why is this not recorded as a declared potential ‘conflict of interest’? Surely officers are bound to also declare any potential conflict when certain items come up and that this be accurately reported in the minutes?
On the Centre of the Racecourse, we get this:

“Advised that the invitation to the Mayor of Glen Eira to give a speech on the opening day function for the improvements to the centre of the racecourse had been withdrawn.

Advised that Racing Victoria and not the MRC had funded the MRC’s synthetic training track in the centre of the racecourse.

Cr Hyams further advised that he and Council’s other Trustees on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust were updated on Trust matters.”

BENTLEIGH DEVELOPMENT

Another recommendation to allow 3 storey development, even though the original permit was for 5 dwellings (2×2 bedrooms and 3×3 bedrooms), but this has now doubled to 10 as well as ALL being 2 bedroom! So much for ‘encouraging’ diversity! Notification also leaves a lot to desire – 5 properties notified, 8 notices sent and 47 objections!

CAULFIELD PARK CAFÉ

Back to the drawing boards on this one – or merely the typical council ploy of delaying expenditure until the place is so run down that the argument invariably becomes – demolish and build a café?

QUARTERLY REPORTING

We remind readers that a public question was asked at the council meeting of February 6^th, 2013. It read:

“Currently there is no public reporting of the results of DPC meetings which do not involve appeals to VCAT. In the interests of transparency and full accountability will councillors ensure that the results of all DPC meetings, including property address, planning proposal, and decision, are included in every Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes?” (Minutes of Feb 6th 2013)

Council’s response, included in part the following: “The Quarterly Services Report for 31 March 2013 will contain information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee according to number of dwellings, number of storeys and number of objections.”

It is clear that the gulf between what is stated and what is done are miles apart. The Quarterly Report DOES NOT include ‘information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee’. All it does is present data on those applications which end up at VCAT. Hence, the community still has no idea of how many applications are granted by DPC, their nature, nor the refusal in a format that is clear, accessible, and comprehensive! So much for transparency and accountability.

FINANCIAL REPORT

Not a single word this time about ‘liquidated damages’. Compared to the tedious repetition of the past months this might be seen as an ‘improvement’.
The delaying of various projects (some until 2014/15 budget) – regrassing of ovals, etc.

April 10, 2013

The Show Goes On!

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

Local Laws Committee

LIPSHUTZ: said that of the ‘major issues’ discussed one was the ‘tree policy’. Reports should come back ‘sometime in May’ from corporate counsel. On ‘organised sport’ rather than ‘amend’ this in the Local Law the committee decided that ‘explanatory notes’ would be incorporated and that these would set ‘out what we see as organised sport’. Also stated that the tree register issue was ‘complex’. At first they were thinking about a ‘point system’ and then rejected it so other alternatives had to now be investigated. So ‘rather than rushing it’ and ‘getting it wrong’ it is wise to do it properly.

COMMENT : Requests for a Tree Register are now a decade old. This is certainly not ‘rushing it’! Also a decade old is the continuing farce over ‘organised sport’ and the laughing stock that this council has become statewide. Remember the ongoing Frisbee affair, the schleppers, the kids in the park, and last but not least, the zombies! And the $64 question – does Lipshutz son’s Frisbee group now have a permit? And why oh why can’t the community be privy to the rationale behind jettisoning the points system that countless other councils employ? Do other councillors even know the logic behind this decision?

Sport and Rec Committee

LIPSHUTZ: moved an amendment about ‘last paragraph of second page’ (WRONG he is referring to the sentence about BURKE) but wanted added that there would be an ‘update about policy’ at the next meeting. Magee seconded this amendment. Lipshutz continued saying that one of the main issues was sporting ground allocations. Said that ‘officers deal with that on the basis of policy’ . Said that Burke ‘went through that with us’ and that at the next meeting there would be an ‘update’ on policy. Stated that ground allocation is the domain of officers on ‘policy’ that council has approved. Burke at the next committee meeting will report back.

MAGEE: for a city with so little open space, sport ground allocation can ‘be divisive’ and ‘very disappointing for clubs’. A “clear policy can be put in place’ for allocations. This has ‘been done successfully’ for years and he ‘welcomes’ officers’ input into ‘putting the policy together’ and is ‘looking forward’ to seeing that policy.

COMMENT: Here we have it – despite Lipshutz’s attempts at obfuscation! There IS NO SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATIONS POLICY. There never has been! All has been left in the hands of Burke. From these comments councillors would appear to again be shying away from any attempt to pass a resolution on the authority to decide who gets what!

VCAT WATCH

Lipshutz provided the ‘commentary’ on the cited decision and claimed it again ‘comes down to what residents want’ as opposed to what the VCAT member wants. Said that the government wants more ‘denSity housing’ etc and that ‘we can’t do anything about that’. Also that ‘one member’ is pro-development’ and another member is opposed to development.

DELAHUNTY – when reading the article she noted that councillors argued ‘against setbacks’ on Hawthorn Rd (Emmy Monash decision and developer handing out How-to-vote cards) and that she argued for setbacks and now ‘another time those same councillors didn’t argue’ for setbacks. So it’s ‘no wonder’ that anyone, including VCAT is ‘confused….I’m confused’.

COMMENT: We’ve commented ad nauseum on the continual scapegoating of VCAT as the villain. Yes, they only need to ‘consider’ policy, but when a council such as Glen Eira has no structure plans, no height limits, no public realm policy, no parking precinct plans and after three years of the Planning Scheme Review has done practically nothing on what it stated it would do (ie Heritage reviews, open space levies etc.) then one must question how much ‘certainty’ this council gives to developers as opposed to residents and the protection of amenity.

CENTENARY PARK PAVILION

MAGEE moved the motion to accept the motion. It’s been needed for over ten years. His boys played for the teams and they ‘had to change’ under the trees because no changing rooms. Now it will be a change from the ‘dilapidated’ old building to the impressive ‘state of the art’ new pavilion. Said the report was ‘very in depth’ and the only ‘down side’ was that it was forecast to take 20 months to complete but the recommendation will let council ‘move onto detailed design phase’.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed that this has been ‘a long time coming’. Now they can with the $500,000 dollar grant from the government.

SOUNNESS moved the amendment that a landscaping plan be added to the recommendation and that the car parking plan be deferred until a ‘detailed landscape design assessment’ was done. Magee refused to accept the amendment. The amendment was then seconded by Pilling. Sounness went on to say that he felt there had to be discussion about ‘cost’ of car parks and he’s got questions about the use of the current land. Said that ‘more discussion’ is needed and that the information provided is ‘insufficient’ – that he wants ‘more information’.

PILLING: wasn’t opposed to the motion and the pavilion was a good idea and needed. But was concerned ‘about the process here’ in the car park design. Compared this to GESAC when ‘at the last moment’ there were 2 instances of extending the car parks and that ‘there seems to be a bit of a similar trend happening here’ . Said that he had asked if there was any loss of open space and that ‘I would like to see that information’ so that they could then ‘really discuss the merit’ . He was urging for a ‘cautionary approach’ and not to ‘just rush in’ and that council needs to ‘investigate all opportunities’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she’d asked a lot of questions and that as councillors they ‘do have an option to go back’ when the design is completed and look at the issue of car parking again and ‘whether or not’ this part ‘goes ahead’. Said that she’d like to see consultation with community and stakeholders about the design. Said she wasn’t so worried about loss of open space because council ‘gains’ in terms of safety and that the ‘new open space’ could be made into something ‘beautiful’.

LIPSHUTZ: said this was only about design and the building of the car park is ‘not what’s going to happen’. Yes, ‘we want it done properly’ and quickly. Once the design is done and ‘information that is brought to us by officers’ they can ‘have another look at it’. They can always say ‘no we’re not happy with that’ and order that the car park be redesigned. Said that the ‘analogy with GESAC is not valid’. GESAC did have a ‘car park planned’ but they were so ‘successful beyond our wildest dreams’.

HYAMS: ‘sympathised’ with Sounness and thought that they would be ‘better placed’ to look at issues of the car park and open space once the design was done because ‘then we’ll have a better idea’.

MAGEE: also ‘admired’ Sounness’ desire to protect the environment, but sometimes you have to be ‘selfish’ and say that he knows the area and the land and that no-one ever uses it. The two car parks date back to 1989 and the land was supposed to be for a kindergarten but with the amalgamation of councils nothing has been done with this. Didn’t think that there was anything on the land ‘worth protecting’ and that ‘the community does not venture into’ that space. Said that adding car park at building stage ‘makes good sense’ and brings ‘both car parks into one site’ and gives ‘extra car parking at no loss of open space’…’no net loss of open space’. Also removes a car park from the playground. It’s a ‘win-win’ and repeated that ‘there is no net loss of open space’.

AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR – SOUNNES & PILLING. VOTING AGAINST: MAGEE, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, DELAHUNTY.

COMMENT: We draw readers’ attention to several crucial points in the above:

1. the claim AGAIN, that officers’ reports are deficient in information

2. Whom to believe – Magee or Pilling. Pilling claims that he asked for information on loss of open space. Clearly that has not come back. Yet Magee is so adamant that there is no loss of current open space. What does he know that Pilling doesn’t know, or is this just another porkey that sounds good?

3. Given the history of this council, there has rarely if ever, been a change of mind, or even a review, of the original proposals once passed by council. There is, in our view, as much hope of saving this area of vegetation as there is of Melbourne winning the AFL premiership this year!

Return to original motion. DELAHUNTY said good to see funding from government even though this comes from slashing TAFE funding, and that the project itself ‘has merit’. Said that ‘we will consider the open space’ and what the ‘community feels’.

MAGEE: ‘long awaited’ ‘valuable addition’ and ‘welcomed the money from the state government’.

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

April 9, 2013

Academy Award Night

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

Several events were unique at tonight’s council meeting.

Esakoff did not utter a word
Lobo was absent with no mention by Burke of an apology or failure to give an apology as required
The minutes of the CEO Contractual committee meeting minutes VOTED UPON we presume, were not included in the agenda items even as a ‘late addition’.
The sale of McKittrick St went through without a single reference by anyone that a potential developer was acquiring public land for a piddling $20,000 on land valued at $66,700
Souness and Pilling moved an amendment requesting more information on the Centenary Rd car park and loss of open space. This was defeated by all other councillors and the original recommendation accepted unanimously.
Racecourse item involved much chest beating. No councillor trustee declared a conflict of interest.
Public questions were abysmally answered as per usual.
Lipshutz’s inconsistency in argument is definitely worthy of a place in the Guinness Book of World Records

We will provide full commentary on the above in the days ahead.

March 19, 2013

A (Very) Brief Report

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

Here’s a very brief rundown on tonight’s council meeting. A full report will be forthcoming – we’re just highlighting the decisions. As predicted, and after much huffing and puffing by certain councillors, it was decided:

The Special Racecourse Committee is now defunct – unanimous
The council ‘position’ on the racecourse is affirmed – unanimous
The planning application went through after the motion to refuse was defeated.
Plenty of public questions on Ajax footy club, Gardener’s Rd incursion into public open space. As usual, pathetic non-answers to the vast majority!
Hyams declared that he does not have a conflict of interest as a Trustee. Tried his usual little Dorothy Dixer to Newton to score a point against the Labor Party but was called on a point of order by Delahunty.
Lipshutz was absent but well ‘deputised’ by Pilling!

All in all a fascinating evening of selective memory, chest beating, and playing to the gallery and posterity.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates