GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

December 3, 2012

The Spin Doctors At Work

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

At the last council meeting officers provided a report in response to the motion moved by Okotel and Esakoff.

“In the interest of transparency and demystifying the planning process for residents and ratepayers, I request a report on:

(a) The information provided to applicants and objectors in relation to Council’s procedures in dealing with planning applications; and

(b) If and how applicants and objectors are informed about the points along the process where they can be involved or express their views.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”

In accepting this report both councillors praised its ‘fulsome’ and ‘comprehensive nature’ although Okotel did comment on several ‘misprints’ that managed to worm their way into official documents. Sadly she did not elaborate! We beg to differ on these  evaluations of the report.

The entire report, presumably by Jeff Akehurst since his name is provided for ‘enquiries’, is merely a regurgitation of the current provided information, and the usual litany of self-congratulatory statements. For example, one sentence claims that both the DPC and the Planning Conferences are a result of “Council choos(ing) to have these public forums in the interest of broader community involvement in town planning decision making.” “Community involvement’ is a wonderful catchcry. It is however illusory in Glen Eira when the implementation of these committees are examined in detail.

The DPC meetings are far from encouraging ‘broader community involvement’ for the following reasons:

  1. Objectors, if they’re lucky, receive only 5 days notice! Further it is not clear whether this means that letters are posted 5 days earlier, or whether council ensures via earlier posting, that objectors have the full 5 days notice. It is even conceivable that if the letters are posted on a Friday, and the DPC meeting is arranged for a Tuesday or Wednesday, that objectors would only receive the notification on the Monday. Hardly a full 5 days notice. Surely if ‘broader community involvement’ was the real objective, Council would inform objectors far earlier of the set dates.
  2. DPC meetings are scheduled DURING OFFICE HOURS. Hardly an appropriate time for resident objectors to attend such a conference if they work. Once again, this would limit and hinder full participation by all objectors. Since community forums and other countless meetings are held in the evening, and if the desire for ‘broader community involvement’ was genuine, then DPC meetings would also be held in the evenings when a far greater number of residents would be likely to attend.
  3. No councillor is granted decision making authority for these meetings. We even wonder whether councillors know which applications are being considered by the DPC, or more significantly, when they find out. Before the fact, or after the permit has been granted or refused? In this instance, councillors are sidelined as effectively as residents. All committee members are officers and the meetings generally go for about one hour. It is further not compulsory for applicants to attend. No minutes or records of DPC decisions are available for public scrutiny. Hardly a transparent and accountable process!

 

PLANNING CONFERENCES

Whilst a councillor is chair of such meetings, and planning conferences usually go to council for ultimate decision making, the procedures are again non conducive to ‘broader community involvement’. Some of the reasons are the same as those outlined above –

  • The lack of sufficient notice
  • The repeated gagging of objector comments and questions (ie Mahvo St is the perfect example)
  • Applicants often do not attend and hence are not available for questioning and ‘compromise’ with residents

The greatest drawback however is that NO OFFICER recommendations are available until the application appears as a report in council agenda papers. This is made public on Friday – usually late in the afternoon on Council’s website. It should again be pointed out that most people work. Most people would also be respectful of councillors’ weekends. So that means that objectors only have 2 working days in order to analyse the officer’s recommendations, contact their councillors and attempt to achieve some favourable outcomes. Timing is everything. Why aren’t the officers’ recommendations reported back to objectors well before the item surfaces as a council agenda item? The 64 dollar question would be – are developers notified of officer recommendations in the same manner or do they get a look in well before objectors find out the fate of the application?

The entire planning processes in Glen Eira are designed to favour the applicant rather than the resident objector. Okotel and Esakoff may continue singing the praises of officer reports, but in doing so they fail to address the central concerns of how such information is disseminated and what protocols are in existence to ensure a fair hearing for both objectors and applicants.

 

December 2, 2012

Even Greater Nonsense!

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

Here’s the unbelievable response to a public question asked at last council meeting. We draw readers’ attention to:

  • The waffle & irrelevance
  • The failure to address the major concern of the question – ie why officer reports do not directly engage (and hence answer) the questions raised via the Request for a Report
  • The unnecessary length

Subject: McKinnon Reserve fence.

The McKinnon Reserve fencing report does not provide Council with an opportunity to decide if gates should be installed at the McKinnon Reserve or if no gates are more appropriate in a fenced reserve. Surely when there are a number of residents requesting gates be returned to the reserve, it is for Council not Officers to decide if the community’s wishes are to be heard? The complete removal, rather than the careful management of the so called ‘dangerous’ Cypress trees along Tucker Road remains a mystery to many residents as the Cypress trees inside the reserve itself remain (although whats done is done). When will this Council provide local residents with an on-going opportunity to have their say in the improvements and changes made in our local reserves?

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Council dealt with this matter earlier in the meeting at Agenda Item 9.4 and you will be able to find Council’s resolution in the Minutes of the meeting.

Your assertions are not correct. The report at Agenda Item 9.4 presents the Council with the opportunity to make whatever decision it wishes to. Had Councillors chosen to have gates installed, we could have passed a motion to that effect. It is the Council and not as you assert Council Officers that decide resolutions of Council.

It is Council Policy to remove trees in only a limited number of circumstances. Such circumstances include a tree being dead, close to death or structurally unsound.Residents whose properties back on to the Reserve and users of the reserve had expressed ongoing concern about the Cypress trees at the southern end of the reserve. Concerns included the declining appearance of the trees and the increasing number of limb failures.

Council’s records indicate that between January 2008 and April 2009 alone, twelve structural branches fell. The electricity company had also been in contact with Council and required Council to prune the trees to comply with the Victorian Government’s new Electrical Line Clearance Regulations (2010).

In response to the community’s concerns and the electricity companies’ direction, Council commissioned an independent arboricultural report of the trees. Key findings were:

 The trees would no longer be viable if pruned to the extent the new Regulations required

 The trees had reached the end of their safe useful life

 The risk of further limb failure was high

 The trees should be removed

The Cypress trees in the north of the reserve were not identified as a risk at that time. Given the findings of the report, there was no other option but for Council to remove the Cypress trees in the south of the reserve.

To inform the community of this, Council’s Parks Services Department:

 Hand delivered letters to 186-236 Tucker Rd, 197 Tucker Rd, 17-25 St James Ave, 2 and 2A Osborne Ave, and

 Erected nine A3 size signs in the reserve: four along the Tucker Road frontage; two at the front entrance; two at the cricket practice nets; and one at the rear entrance.

The letter to residents was dated 22 August 2011 and read as follows:

“TO THE RESIDENT AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR COUNCIL

Dear Resident

Re. McKinnon Reserve – Tree removal works

Council recently commissioned an arboricultural report on the health and condition of the rows of Cypress trees located in McKinnon Reserve.

The report identified that the Cypress trees along the southern boundary and eastern boundary (Tucker Road frontage) of the reserve are over mature, have poor structure and the likelihood of significant limb failure is high. As a consequence the risk to people, powerlines and property is high. The report recommends the removal of the entire southern and eastern rows of 178 Cypress trees.

Council plans to commence removing the trees on Monday 29th August 2011. The immediate area around the affected trees will be fenced off during works to ensure the safety to park users. Replacement trees will be planted later in 2011.

If you need any further information on this matter please contact Council’s Tree Maintenance Coordinator Mr David Edwards on 9524 3333.

Yours sincerely,

Laurie Unwin

Manager Park Services”

The nine signs that were erected around the Reserve read as follows:

“PUBLIC NOTICE – Tree Removal Works

An independent arborist has identified the need to remove the southern and eastern rows of over mature Cypress trees in McKinnon Reserve (178 trees in total).The trees are in poor condition, have poor structure and many have had branches fail and fall.

To eliminate the risk to people, powerlines and property Council will commence removing the trees on the southern and Tucker Road boundaries on Monday 29th August.

To ensure safety, Council will fence off the effected trees before starting works and request that park users do not enter these areas. Council is planning to plant new trees later in 2011.”

The independent arborist who is professionally qualified in these matters did not regard the trees that required removing as ‘so called dangerous’.

This Council has always provided opportunities for input into the development of our City. Public consultation is a feature that has informed Council’s development of park masterplans and strategies and the elected Councillors will be continuing with this feature. Previous examples include:

 Boyd Park Management Plan

 Caulfield Park Masterplan

 Bentleigh Hodgson Masterplan

 Packer Park Masterplan

 Princes Park Masterplan

 The Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC)

 The Dog off leash review

 Bicycle Strategy

 Packer Park West development

 Duncan Mackinnon Reserve Masterplan

 Murrumbeena Play space redevelopment

 Former Booran Road Reservoir Redevelopment.

A forthcoming example will be the Open Space Strategy review that will commence in the near future. This will involve wide consultation.

Of course, residents can also always contact Council or Councillors about any concerns they have in relation to any park and these will be examined and considered.”

 

November 29, 2012

More Nonsense

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

PS: By way of contrast we’re adding this titbit of news from the Port Phillip Council Meeting Minutes of 27th November 2012, Page 3. The difference to the way things are done in Glen Eira is, of course, staggering.

“A petition was received from 14 signatories in relation to parking on Bridge Street between Lyons Street to Esplanade East, Port Melbourne.

MOVED BY CRS TOUZEAU/VOSS

That Council:

Receives the petitions and refers it to officers for investigation. A proposal will then be developed for possible new parking restrictions. A subsequent survey/questionnaire will be distributed to properties adjacent to Bridge Street Port Melbourne seeking feedback.The survey will inform any new parking restrictions that may be implemented.

A vote was taken and the motion was carried”

 

COMMENTS

We find it most refreshing that councillors actually TELL officers what to do! We also find it most refreshing that decisions are made on the spot, not a year later. We also find it most refreshing that transparency and consultation is an integral part of a response. The take home message for our councillors is that where there’s a will , there’s definitely a way!

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

The minutes of 7th February 2012 recorded this petition from residents:

A petition co-signed by 23 signatories was tabled which read as follows:

“This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the attention of the Council our wish that there be trees planted on Murray Road, Mckinnon/Ormond. Prioritising tree planting on our street will help realise the Glen Eira Community Plan, Street Tree Strategy and Environmental Sustainability Strategy. We believe that this action will significantly improve the psychological, social and environmental quality of our street. We understand that trees would have to be planted on the road and that there will be some associated loss of car parking space. Your petitioners therefore pray that trees are planted on Murray Road, Mckinnon/Ormond as soon as possible.”

The petition, as per normal was ‘received and noted’ unanimously.

Now, 9 months later at Tuesday night’s council meeting Pilling submitted a request for a report on the planting of street trees in Murray Rd. This was seconded by Esakoff. Pilling said that it’s a narrow street and lacks trees and there was the need to improve the ‘amenity of the street’. Esakoff agreed that ‘the street could certainly do with some greening’. Okotel  was ‘pleased’ because this issue was ‘long overdue’ and that concerns of residents ‘are being heard’ and that the report will be the means to ‘ensure that (the issue) ‘will be addressed without further delay”.

We highlight this Request for a Report because it again illustrates the failure of this council and its councillors to institute processes that respond in a timely fashion to resident concerns. We note the following:

  • In other councils petitions are not merely ‘noted’ – they are immediately passed on to the relevant department for action. In Glen Eira petitions generally disappear into the ether and unless residents keep the issue up front, they are invariably ignored and forgotten.
  • Now we have the farce of waiting for another officer’s report. With NO NOTICE OF MOTION available to councillors, the community is again in the hands of officers who may take months and months to report back and then possibly another major time lag before anything is actually planted.
  • The ‘solution’ is very simple it would seem to us. Councillors must ensure that when petitions are tabled they are acted upon, or responded to immediately. It is literally a joke that it takes 9 months, and another officers’ report in order to get anything done in Glen Eira. Not only is this a slap in the face to residents, but it also means more time and expense wasted on unnecessary paper work by officers.
  • Further, if councillors were so concerned about ‘greening’ Murray Rd. did the thought ever occur to them that a simple resolution which stated ’30 street trees to be planted in Murray Rd’ might have sufficed? That is of course, if such a motion passed the ‘no surprises’ component of the Meeting Procedures of the Local Law and if it could somehow be squeezed into an agenda set by Newton!
 

November 28, 2012

Accounting & Magnificent Spin!

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

FINANCIAL REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: council is again ‘progressing well’ and that GESAC is doing a lot better than council ‘anticipated’. They’d originally been looking at a $300,000+ ‘surplus’ but this has now gone out to over a million dollar surplus. Claimed that GESAC is now covering ‘all its borrowing costs’ but not ‘operating costs’. There are over 8,500 members and that he ‘anticipates’ that it will be ‘covering operating costs completely’. Also noted a sentence on page 2 where there ‘was a transfer of $136,000’ from a maternal child & health centre to GESAC for ‘heating and ventilation’. Said that this ‘wasn’t so much a transfer of funds’ out of the health centre but that council were thinking of ‘redeveloping’ the centre staff room. ‘Council decided that when they looked at the plans….it wasn’t worth doing….and as such it didn’t occur’. The money was therefore ‘surplus’ and now used for GESAC. Because GESAC is ‘so heavily used’ and there are lots of people in the centre that ‘we needed to lower the temperature’. ‘We don’t ordinarily remove funds from’ one project to another. Noted that what the Auditor General had said was that unlike other councils, Glen Eira has a ‘business plan before we do anything’ and if ‘it doesn’t stand up, we don’t do it’. So when officers looked at the issue of the staff room it didn’t ‘stack up’…’and as such it didn’t happen’. Went on about ‘operating costs per assessment’ – Glen Eira has one of the lowest & rates and charges are also one of the lowest; ‘fourth highest for pensioner rebates’ and ‘third highest for grants and subsidies’ and 3rd highest in capital works. Said that in some other councils the criticism is that money should be used ‘to pay back debt’. Claimed that was ‘poor’ because it would mean the degradation of facilities and ultimately cost more to replace.Glen Eira has a ‘rolling program’ that means they ‘keep things moving’ ‘so we don’t have to spend money’….’cost saving’. Summed up that it was an ‘excellent report’ which shows that ‘council is on track once again’ and that Glen Eira is a ‘template’ for quality and other councils.

DELAHUNTY: disagreed with Lipshutz on Auditor General’s report. Said that council had been asked to maintain a liquidity ratio somewhere ‘greater than 1.5’ and the report clearly says that over the next few years it will remain ‘around 1’ so there is a need for ‘caution’ with cash flows, ‘so there is a need for concern’. Said that congratulations are due to GESAC but it’s not yet ‘paying for itself’ since it costs council $1 per visit. Agreed with some of the things Lipshutz said but the liquidity ratio needed some caution.

HYAMS: said that Lipshutz is ‘adamant’ that all surplus should be ‘spent on capital works’. Spoke about the $7 million dollar debt for the Benefits scheme which council was ‘going to be charged 7.5% interest on’ that there are ‘grounds to consider’ whether some of the debt should be paid off sooner. ‘That’s a discussion we will all have no doubt’. Referring to Delahunty’s comments on the liquidity ratio agreed that ‘yes it is something we will need to keep our eye on’ but he ‘wouldn’t say it is cause for concern’ but a ’cause for caution’. It’s only ‘one indicator taken in isolation’ and overall ‘we are in a very sound financial position’ and that the report ‘reflects that’. Said that council is generally conservative in its forecasts so that the projected liquidity ratio is of this ilk and will stay ‘well above’ the 1 figure.

LIPSHUTZ: said that Delahunty ‘didn’t have the benefit’ of being present at the Audit committee when the Auditor General came out. The AG was ‘very satisfied’ with the ways things were being handled, congratulated them in fact and that ‘council was handling (things) very, very well’. ‘There was nothing of concern at all’….’we have to be cautious, we have to watch our ratio’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS:

We freely admit that we are not accountants. Yet, some of the revelations ensuing from this item we find to be extraordinary. For the first time we learn that the Employee Retirement Fund cost of over $7 million is to incur a loan of 7.5% interest. Council has repeatedly claimed that the first $3 million plus, that is due to be paid by June 2013 has already been budgeted for. Does this therefore mean that council over the next 15 years can’t find a meagre $4 million dollars to pay off this debt? More significantly why are they locked into an interest rate of 7.5%? This is surely astronomical given today’s falling interest rates. Is this a sign that Glen Eira Council is in fact viewed by lenders as ‘high risk’ and hence the high interest rate? Why must there be any borrowing at all for a measly 4 or 7 million unless the cash flow is indeed on very parlous grounds?

So, for all the talk of being ‘on track’ and how wonderful this council’s finances are, there are countless questions that need answering and figures that reveal the absolute truth. Here are some further questions to ponder:

  • If Glen Eira is so wonderful with its ‘business plans’ then how can a budget be approved, funded, and then suddenly money is withheld from a child care centre and transferred to GESAC?  The actual sentence referred to by Lipshutz reads: “Transfer funds of $136K from Caulfield MCHC to GESAC HVAC works to cover the expenses on the additional HVAC plant”. Since these acronyms would mean nothing to 99% of residents, surely it is time that an important document such as this was made intelligible to people? More importantly, what does this again indicate about the overall planning and astuteness of the entire GESAC project? How often has this council ripped money out of one agreed to project to cover the costs of another?
  • Why has so little money been spent on other projects? Are they being delayed because there simply isn’t the money to go ahead with them? Lipshutz argues that ‘surplus’ is spent on capital works, yet over $10 million dollars is carried through from LAST YEAR’S budget! If that’s not delaying projects to an inordinate amount, then we don’t know what is!
  • The public deserves a fully itemised ledger on exactly what GESAC is costing. Figures cited in these reports need to be fully DEFINED. For example: do the ‘expenses’ listed for GESAC include interest repayments, staff costs, or are they simply everyday costs, such as heating, maintenance, etc? Without clear definitions the public is lost. Of course, this may all be deliberate!!!!!! It is definitely time for less spin and more upfront and detailed accounting!
 

November 27, 2012

What A Welcoming, Flexible Council This Is!

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

The fully orchestrated nature of the councillor briefing was evident in the first item of tonight’s council meeting. Esakoff moved to accept the minutes of previous meeting “as printed” when Hyams said “Are you sure of that?”. Esakoff then looked at her notes and moved that there be a correction – changing the printed days from a Monday to a Tuesday for the Special Council Meeting! But the meeting reached new heights of arrogance, if not sheer lunacy when it came to public questions. One question asked what input residents could have as to the development and maintenance of their parks and facilities. The response was a world record no doubt – at least 5 minutes of the most inane, irrelevant and arrogant waffle ever produced by any council we would think. Once the full minutes come out we urge all readers to take the time to peruse this response. It is quite unbelievable.

GARDENVALE RD DEVELOPMENT

Delahunty moved an amendment which basically included changes and additions to the conditions imposed on the application – ie. carparking, insertion of bollards, car stackers to be maintained by body corporate ‘in good working order’. Seconder was Lipshutz.

DELAHUNTY: Said that this area ‘was very close’ to her heart and that she had spent many hours in this area. The proposed development ‘has some excellent features’ and doesn’t impact on residential areas and that a notice is published about residents not being issued with residential parking. Stated that since it’s so close to the railway station it will be ‘a selling point for the developers’. Went on to say that the Martin St., shopping strip belongs to Bayside Council and that right now that council ‘is considering the development of structure plans…..(and is)’recognition that (the area) is growing (into an important community centre and Bayside see the preparation of a structure plan as ‘required’. The ‘structure plan is a long term guide for land use….it creates the framework of how  a centre is planned….and the actions needed to realise that framework’. Concluded by ‘urging’ councillors to consider the ‘greater strategic role’ for shaping Gardenvale ‘through the use of structure plans’.

LIPSHUTZ: concurred with Delahunty that this area is ‘appropriate’. Was concerned about parking and ‘unfortunately this particular site doesn’t lend itself to have ‘ visitor parking available but there’s areas on the street so residents won’t have this added pressure put on them. Didn’t agree with Delahunty on structure plans because they are a ‘blunt instrument’ and ‘certainly not very flexible’ but that’s ‘a debate for the future’.

ESAKOFF: doesn’t support the recommendation because she felt that ‘the number of car parking spaces for visitors….should be provided’. The area is already ‘busy’ and ‘it would be an unfortunate precedent’ not to insist on visitor car parking spaces. Said that these requirements should have been applied and if they couldn’t be then another option was to ‘reduce the number of dwellings’. Confirmed that ‘parking is an ongoing issue in Glen Eira’ so even though it might seem a ‘small reason’ not to support the recommendation ‘but it’s my reason’.

OKOTEL: supported Esakoff. Said that the planning scheme requires that there be 2 visitor car parking spaces ‘as a starting point’ but this could be waived ‘depending on’ evidence. Said that she didn’t think that this ‘warrants a waiver’…’important that we ensure there is compliance with’ the planning scheme.

AT THIS POINT A MEMBER OF THE GALLERY ASKED IF HE COULD SPEAK. HYAMS SAID ‘NO WE’VE HAD A PLANNING CONFERENCE WHICH’ gives the opportunity for the public to speak….’we don’t allow members of the public to address council’. The resident then asked ‘when is the planning conference?’. Hyams said that it had been held and that all objectors were notified.Resident said that ‘I’ve got a notice here saying that there’s a council meeting’ on the 27th’ ‘and I’m invited to attend’. Hyams then said ‘Yes but it doesn’t say you’re invited to speak’. Resident said ‘I’ve got a problem with this’. Hyams – ‘said he ‘understood’ but the Local Law is ‘that councillors speak at council meetings’ unless it’s on the agenda that the public is ‘invited to speak’. Went on to say that they ‘specifically’ have planning conferences where the public can ‘address’ councillors…’it’s not a statutary requirement, but we do it’ and people can then speak to council. ‘Council meeting is not the forum’.

Went on to the application. ‘Normally I would say there should be visitor parking, but in this case it is ‘not practical’ because of the car stackers which visitors couldn’t use. It’s also a commercial areas so people wouldn’t come outside ‘commercial hours’ there would be ‘spots for visitors to park’ and on ‘that basis’ he supports the recommendation/amendment

MOTION PUT and CARRIED: Voting for were: Hyams, Delahunty, Pilling, Souness, Lipshutz. Against – Okotel, Esakoff, Magee (Lobo was absent)

We will follow up with the rest of the items in the coming days.

 

November 16, 2012

Shame! Shame! Shame!

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

This is a long post for which we make no apology. The length is a direct result of the waffle, irrelevancies and Council’s continued refusal to provide direct answers to public questions. When residents take the time and trouble to actually put pen to paper then they have every right to expect that their questions will be answered. This Council repeatedly fails to respond directly to what has been asked, or provides information that can only be called ‘misleading’ if not deliberately evasive. It would also be a first that councillors, when asked for their individual views, have the courage to actually make an individual statement rather than hide behind the Big Brother label of “council”.

Here are the two public questions asked on Tuesday and taken directly from the minutes. Readers should pay careful attention to the nonsense that parades as ‘responses’ – we do not call them ‘answers’! Our emphases in bold. One final point to keep in mind: The council website went ‘live’ in July 2012 – after nearly 2 years of ‘consultation’ and consultants working on it. We note that no professional webmaster should take 4 months to upload a series of documents, as requested by Question 2 and specified in the Community Plan.

Subject: Inappropriate development
“Many successful candidates in the recent Glen Eira elections stated a policy of opposing inappropriate development. What is each councillor’s personal definition of “inappropriate development” and what changes to the Glen Eira Planning
Scheme does each councillor believe need to be made in order to make very clear to councillors, council officers, VCAT, developers and residents what Council actually wishes to achieve and what is inappropriate? To what extent does amenity,  jobs, open space, housing diversity, traffic congestion and the myriad other things that appear in State Government planning guides, but are generally ignored by VCAT, matter?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“No Councillor wishes to see inappropriate development in our municipality. When deliberating on Town Planning applications Councillors are required to apply the provisions of the State Government’s Planning Scheme. Indeed, as a Responsible town planning Authority, the elected Council is bound by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”). The Act’s objectives are:
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);
(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

The word “inappropriate” carries with it a degree of personal opinion – a little like “beauty” which is said to be in the eye of the beholder. It follows that what constitutes inappropriate development will vary between individuals. In determining whether an application is appropriate, each councillor takes into account factors such as the impact the application would have on neighbourhood amenity, how well it complies with the neighbourhood character, traffic impacts, overlooking, overshadowing, the provision of parking, setbacks, height, site coverage, provision of open space, internal amenity, permeability and more, together with those you have listed.
In a nutshell, councillors regard as inappropriate any development that does not comply with the relevant planning law as we assess it.
There are limitations on our ability to prescribe exactly what we would like to see deemed inappropriate. Two such limitations are:-
1. Any local policy not considered by the State Government to be consistent with State policy will not find its way into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme in the first place. This is because any changes to any planning scheme require the approval of the Minister for Planning.
2. Even when in the planning scheme, VCAT only has to consider local policy not implement it.”

However, the government is about to overhaul the planning law by introducing new planning zones that will be more prescriptive. It will likely be up to each Council to determine where and how to fit the new zones to the municipality, and how the schedules in each zone will define appropriate development within each area, although again this will be subject to government approval. These new zones should allow us to make it clearer what is considered appropriate, and it is likely they will also be more binding on VCAT.”

 
Subject: Policy
“One of Council’s principal roles in the Council chamber is to resolve policy and strategy for the CEO and his staff to administer. There are I understand over 130 such policies and strategies which Glen Eira Council currently operates under. I am only able to locate 5 Council’s website. One policy which may not even exist is the policy which determines sports grounds and sporting facilities allocations. I have been previously advised that allocations are handled by officers not Councillors to avoid conflicts of interest. I expect Officers to undertake such critical decisions with the authority of Council by virtue of clear policy guidelines. Given the public outcry at the allocation of the GESAC basketball courts to the Warriors and not to a more locally based group McKinnon Basketball Association, is this Council going to resolve a policy for the entire allocation of Glen Eira sports grounds and facilities, which represent the wishes of Council and the Glen Eira Community, or will Council continue to leave such vital matters to the (albeit highly competent) administrators?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Council adopted policies currently appear on Council’s website at various locations. With the introduction of a new website earlier this year Council is now working on consolidating such policies in one area of the website and Council hopes to have this in place in the near future.

In addition, some documents were removed in order to comply with the Caretaker provisions of the Local Government Act. They are in the process of being reinstated.

In relation to the allocation of sport and recreation facilities, you asked a similar Public Question at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2012 and Council stated: ‘Council’s approach has catered for large numbers of teams and widespread improvements to public open space for both passive and active users. There is evidence of widespread support and community satisfaction with the approaches taken to date. This includes statements by sporting associations themselves in consultative forums. Glen Eira’s sports ground agreement documentation and processes have been used as best practice in recreation industry forums. Other Councils
have asked for copies. It is open to Councils to set strategy and policy on Council facilities and services or vary existing strategies and policies in response to changing circumstances. Future development in these areas would need to have regard to
 Community needs
 Balance between passive and active uses of public open space
 Uses of Crown Land (including the racecourse reserve)
 Government policy on open space contributions
 Sustainability, including the use of water and other natural resources
 Access for all abilities
 Objective and transparent systems which earn the confidence of the sporting community and encourage responsible self-management by clubs
 Findings, observations and recommendations by the Auditor General, Ombudsman and others
 Availability of government grants (reflecting government priorities)
 and so on.’
Officers rely on practice and precedent in dealing with allocations for clubs with a tenancy in Glen Eira. It is important to note that the model retains the flexibility needed to manage grounds through re-assigning grounds as and when required.
This applies to both planned maintenance and those times when unexpected issues arise.

Council’s process for the allocation of sporting facilities proceeds on the basis that in return for allocations and extensions of allocations of public facilities, clubs conduct themselves as good community citizens:
 providing opportunities for participants,
 conducting their activities safely, both on and off the playing field,
 exhibiting good governance
 respecting public facilities
 and being a good neighbour to residents and others in the vicinity..
In recent times Council has not removed an allocation from a club.

In relation to your comments on basketball at GESAC, Council can inform you that during the previous term of Council Councillors were provided with the two Expressions of Interest (EOI) submissions and no Councillor questioned that the allocation was awarded to the better of the two EOIs.

Additionally, your attention is drawn to Agenda Item 9.7 in the Agenda Papers for the 13 November 2012 Council Meeting concerning the use of the multi-purpose indoor courts for basketball and a range of other activities and the high levels of community participation in GESAC.”

 

November 15, 2012

Hot Air Galore!

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

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE STRATEGY

Moved Pilling, seconded Lipshutz

PILLING: strategy for new policy  is ‘commencing’. Council ‘recognises how important’ this is especially in the face of new developments and the Dandenong Rd one could be ‘100 new apartments with no open space’. Another problem is that Carnegie ‘has very little open space’ and Glen Eira has least amount of open space in metropolitan Melbourne. Need to really ‘plan for the future’ since existing policy dates back to 1998 and ‘a lot’s changed since then’ so ‘it’s appropriate that we do outline a new strategy’ for next decade. Acknowledged that open space is an issue ‘out there in the community’ and was happy this was now about to take place’

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Pilling and noted that Camden ward has the least amount of public open space – ‘take away Caulfield Park and there’s not much there’. Said that council wouldn’t ‘find it easy to buy land’ and that what’s ‘more important is how we use the parks’. He welcomed a new strategy and wanted to ‘hear from the community….hear what all residents have to say (old and young and) ‘they all have a say’….’well look at that, we’ll put it in the mix’

MAGEE: said that one of the recommendations would likely be that ‘you would need a hell of a lot more’ open space and that some of the recommendations might look at ‘how we can better use some of the pocket parks’. Claimed that the off leash review ‘gave us a better understanding of how parks were being used’….’great opportunity to have a fresh look’ at Racecourse and where that could be in 20, 30 or 40 years time. Said that at the start of the new councillor term there’s the opportunity for councillors to ‘set in concrete’ the vision for where council should be. ‘Well overdue’ and how ‘fresh eyes from outside Glen Eira’ look at the city.

PILLING: noted the $30,000 grant from the government and that council was ‘very happy’ to receive this. Lot of issues to look at includding ‘biodiversity, …planning….right mix between passive and active’ and ‘increased flooding’. Consultation is important and ‘we do want to bring people with us’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE TRUSTEES

Sounness moved the motion to nominate the following councillors as trustees and that their names be forwarded to the Minister – DELAHUNTY, ESAKOFF, HYAMS,  LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, MAGEE, PILLING. Okotel seconded.

MAGEE: Hoped that the Minister would see fit to reappoint him as trustee. Said that the next 12 months would be important in finalising leases with the MRC and hoped that ‘those agreements aren’t finalised tomorrow’ since the MRC would ‘see a benefit’ in meeting before the 3 trustees were formalised. Thanked Forge and Tang for their past efforts and that every time he asked for their support he got it. Said that trustee meetings can be a ‘battle’ rather than a ‘meeting’ and it was good to have them alongside on the public park aspects and that the trustees needed ‘to review and maybe reacquaint themselves with’. Again reiterated that he hoped the Minister would reappoint him to continue the process that they’ve started over the last 3 years.

SOUNNESS: did not have anything further to say.

MAGEE: since he was trustee for 3 years he could give advice to any new trustees although he hoped that the Minister could ‘see some benefit’ in accepting him again as a trustee.

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

GESAC COURT USAGE

PILLING: Said that the report was useful in seeing how things stood. Noted that the Warriors allocation was for 90 hours and that they were only using 79 at present but it is ‘encouraging’ that total use is higher. Lots of information in the report about how GESAC ‘is operating’ and numbers of members and ‘going very well’. Hoped that the basketball court cover ‘does increase’ and that he will be keeping ‘a close watch on how things do progress’ and with the contract negotiations that ‘we do have the best process in place’ for next year.

LIPSHUTZ: for all the ‘naysayers’ who said that GESAC ‘wouldn’t work, wouldn’t make a profit’ and that there’s a $1.6 million dollar profit. That’s partly a result of the Warriors at $45 per hour as opposed to the offer McKinnon and that’s ‘something that goes to the success of GESAC’. Said that people were saying the Warriors couldn’t field teams and ‘clearly they have made a success of it’ – listed the figures from the report (ie 800 members, etc). Did say ‘they are still 11 hours short’ but ‘encouraging’ that they are ‘improving’. Would like to see more but it’s ‘encouraging’ what the Warriors have done, ‘they are contributing, they are a success’ and that means a ‘success for council as well’.

DELAHUNTY: Said that like Pilling and Lipshutz said this report is a ‘starting point’ to know what’s happening, especially with basketball. Agreed that GESAC is financially doing well but thought it was important for councillors to look at how well it was performing for the ‘community’. She asked whether the Warriors are actually ‘made up of local children’ and what about access. this is a ‘starting point’ but these are the sorts of things that councillors ‘need to keep an eye on’.

HYAMS: noted that the ‘warriors are exceeding their hours’ including ‘weekdays and holidays’ even though they didn’t apply for an allocation here. They’re also ‘filling in gaps’ that other sports aren’t filling. said that it was ‘his understanding’ that since the report was written the warriors have ‘further improved their performance on the weekend’….’far better result’ (than if council had) ‘gone with McKinnon both in terms of hours and financially’. Said that details of allocations were only confirmed in February so Warriors really only had 3 months and even then they didn’t know when it was going to be opened. Said that council had projected it would meet operating costs, ‘but in fact it’s meeting practically all its interest costs as well’.

PILLING: agreed with Delahunty that there’s more to consider than just financials. Said that they do want ‘the best outcome’…’for all people in the community’. Things are going well but need to ‘follow this closely’ so that the ‘best possible result’ can be achieved.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

November 13, 2012

Too Late She Cried……..

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[19] Comments 

This post features a report on the 12 storey application on Dandenong Road. We ask readers to carefully assess the arguments presented by each councillor since we feel they are extraordinary and in fact, represent an admission of total failure to plan and protect residential amenity.

Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling and Magee have now been on council for a period ranging from 9 to 4 years. Not once throughout this time have any of them been willing to address the issue of height limits in Glen Eira. Not once have any of them insisted (in public) that Glen Eira Council applies for interim or permanent height controls. Now we have the nonsense argument that since there is no policy we can’t knock back entirely such applications. But, with the planning zone reforms they will finally look at height controls. It’s anyone’s guess if these height controls will be anything less than 8 storeys for activity zones.

Here’s the ‘debate’. Lobo was on ‘leave of absence’ until December.

Esakoff moved an alternate motion. Instead of 12 storeys the application be reduced to 8 storeys and 97 dwellings and that only 20% of dwellings be reliant on artificial light and car parking be 1 car space for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings and not less than 48 retail car parking spaces. Seconded by Pilling.

ESAKOFF: said that her motion basically ‘halves’ the number of levels and reduced the number of units from 173 to 97. Her motion also ‘brings back the scale of the building where it will fit more comfortably into the surrounds’ but will still allow this development where it is “most appropriate along Dandenong Road”. Stated that she was concerned that there would be more traffic congestion along Koornangk Road therefore “the reduction in the number of dwellings is appropriate”….’although clearly there will still be an increase in car movements’. Concerned about the borrowed light and ‘my preference would be that all apartments’ have natural light but that this isn’t unusual these days when people go to VCAT. Even though council’s traffic department said that 35 car parks were sufficient for the retail section she felt that 48 should be available in ‘accordance with the requirements’. A sign would also have to be placed to let people know that no residential parking permits will be given out for this development so that people who are thinking of buying or renting will know the situation.

PILLING: supported Esakoff because it was ‘more modest’ even though the site is ‘right for development’ and is in a “fairly unique part of Carnegie’ but he does ‘have problems with the 12 storeys’. Went on to explain that in Carnegie currently most buildings are four stories even though VCAT did allow a couple of 5 storeys recently, so to go ‘from 5 to 12 is…too much for this area’. Said that “it was never envisaged that Carnegie would have 12 storey towers’ but that the alternative of 8 storeys “is appropriate”. Said that council needed to look at heights in some areas to give “better surety” to people.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that he always wanted to be consistent in that ‘development should be reasonable’ but in this case he supports the officer’s recommendation for 12 storeys. Argued that he would agree with Pilling if this was in a ‘quiet residential street’ but this is on Dandenong Road with a railway line and ‘doesn’t impact on any housing’ or overshadowing. ‘Where else are we going to have high density housing?”. Said that the government supports high density housing but that he doesn’t want that in ‘our quiet residential streets’ or some of the main streets in Glen Eira, but Dandenong Road is okay. Went on to ask ‘why is 12 storeys wrong’? Agreed that there would be an impact on traffic though but that would happen regardless of whether it was 8 storeys or 12 storeys. Further, this is a ‘high quality building’ and not cheap and nasty. The area is mainly commercial/industrial and there’s nothing really nice about it and this would ‘improve the area’. If the application was for anywhere else he would support the alternate motion but not this time. “I see nothing wrong with this building in this particular site”.

MAGEE: said that he’s got his own little ‘checklist’ and that before he makes a decision he asks whether the application is in a Major Activity Centre, and this is. It also ‘meets the State Planning Policy Framework’. Asked ‘where are the reasons to object to this?’ It meets state planning policy, is in a Housing Diversity Area and that earlier in the year council voted to turn this ‘into a business 2 zone’, so ‘intense development is encouraged in that area’. Also part of the urban village policy ‘which encourages high residential density’ in these areas. Further no problems with director of public transport nor vic roads and parks, waste management and no-one thought there was an issue or problem. What the problem is, is that ‘the framework is not there….because we have set no height limits. There is no height limits set by us in the past’ but there is an ‘opportunity’ with the Minister’s planned new zones ‘we may be able to put some restrictions in ourselves’ then. Said that council can’t tell a developer to apply for a permit and then say we’re ‘not going to give it to you’ when council has put in these conditions and allowed things to happen. Said that vcat would approve it anyway because they’ll look at the fact that it’s in a Major Activity Centre and ‘tick, tick, tick tick’. Vcat won’t reduce it by 4 floors. Instead of reducing it ‘you’ve got to say’ reject it entirely. “we as a council have put this policy in place….the framework is not consistent with reducing it by 4 floors’…‘we’ve got to make sure in future that we do set height limits’ and this application shows ‘the failings’ of council in that they haven’t looked at height limits closely enough.

SOUNNESS: supported the officers recommendations for 12 storeys. “I feel that if the development is not there, then where?’ He didn’t find the grounds ‘sufficiently compelling’ to support the alternate motion.

DELAHUNTY: started off by saying that many ‘of us campaigned on the grounds of opposing inappropriate development’ . Said that Lipshutz had made her case for her in that Lipshutz admitted there were traffic problems, borrowed light. Felt that this development ‘was overly intense and that’s enough for me’

OKOTEL: Said that no policy has been developed on how tall buildings should be and felt that this decision would set a precedent for development in the area. Said that other buildings on opposite side of Dandenong Road are 3 storeys and apartments of ‘no more than 2 storeys’ so this would be ‘far, far greater’ than what’s there presently. This would also cause ‘pressure on existing amenities’ and ‘create further congestion’. Said that residents already have severe problems with Koornang Rd, and trains make this even worse. Stated that ‘in the absence of policy’ as to height limits then council must also consider what the community benefit will be so given congestion and the likelihood of many families with kids living in the area, she thinks there wouldn’t be overall community benefit.

HYAMS: ‘this is a really tough one’…’it certainly is the right place for more intense development’. It ‘might set a precedent’ but since it’s the only such block in the area then maybe it won’t set a precedent. No overlooking or overshadowing, near shops and trains, ‘so the ideal place for intense development’. Said that Esakoff’s proposal would equate to ‘intense development’  but ‘it fits this site’. ‘In the absence of height limits it’s up to us….to work out what we think the height should be’. Admitted that there is ‘chaos on Koornang Road’. Said that he didn’t think it ‘was ever put to Vic Roads that there should be ingress from Dandenong Road’ and if there ‘had been my decision might have been a bit different’. Said that he did like the changes to parking, private waste collection and no parking permits. He supported the motion for 8 storeys.

ESAKOFF: said that this was ‘an intense development even at the reduced level’. Height limits ‘can be put when we deal with the residential zones at the appropriate time…..but this is what we have on the table now’.

HYAMS PUT THE MOTION. VOTE WAS TIED 4 ALL. HYAMS USED HIS CASTING VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ALTERNATE MOTION.

IN FAVOUR OF ESAKOFF’S MOTION WERE – ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, DELAHUNTY, HYAMS

AGAINST – PILLING, SOUNNESS, MAGEE, LIPSHUTZ

 

November 12, 2012

GESAC Basketball: More Spin?

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

Item 9.7 of the current agenda features a four page report on the GESAC basketball allocations. Two things need to be highlighted:

  • The 90 hour court allocation agreement given to the Warriors has NOT BEEN FULFILLED despite what Burke would like us to believe
  • We have serious doubts as to whether the courts (and GESAC) are really paying for themselves

First, a little history to place things in context. The Warriors were finally awarded the EOI after much dilly-dallying in December 2011 and on Burke’s decision. GESAC did not open until May 2012. That gave the Warriors at least 5 months to get their act into full operation via a concerted recruitment drive – which they did according to their website and Facebook pages of this period. But, even as early as June 2011 the Warriors were trumpeting their success in gaining GESAC and their website featured the call for recruits even back then. That is over a year ago! Recruitment is still ongoing.

There are many statements within the Burke report that we take issue with. We will go through these sequentially.

  1. We’re supposed to believe this statement: “GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.” GESAC did not open at short notice. The progress was continually monitored according to media releases and Pool Steering Committee reports. More importantly, the courts themselves were part of  a separate contract, contingent on additional government funding. Furthermore, the courts were completed by December 2011, yet allowed to stand idle for 5 months waiting for the entire complex to open. No satisfactory reason has been provided as to why the courts were not opened earlier since they boast entirely separate access and their own facilities. The basketball season also started in December, so it would have made perfectly good sense to open the facility at this time. We suspect that the reason this did not happen was simply because the Oakleigh Warriors did not at that time have sufficient teams even though they had been recruiting for over half a year as we’ve stated above.
  2. Burke also asserts: “GESAC opened mid-season.” – ie in May. Hardly MID SEASON! The basketball winter season was 4 weeks old. Most Associations and the poor old Warriors were unable to get their full competition off and running EVEN though one of the stated reasons they won the EOI was because of their superior marketing of the game! In fact, in the months leading up to the opening they were marketing a competition that would be held in other stadiums until GESAC was completed….that competition never happened!
  3. Another statement – “The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened”.  Well, we are now in November and GESAC has been open for 6 months YET THE WARRIORS HAVE STILL NOT FULFILLED THEIR HOURLY ALLOCATION! Burke tries desperately to befuddle the picture with his irrelevant and bogus figures. We remind readers that the Warriors hired 90 hours of court time in the Friday to Sunday timeslot. They were awarded the EOI on the promise of paying over $4,000+ per week for these 90 hours. Now we’re told that the court time utilised by the Warriors in this timeslot only tallies 79 hours. That’s 11 hours less than the contract stipulated and just under $500 per week that GESAC and ratepayers are possibly losing out on. Please note that these figures are also the latest figures. What was going on in June, July, and August for example? How many court hours were standing idle during this time and how much revenue was lost? In fact, the question needs to be asked – Have the Warriors handed over, for the duration of these 6 months, $4,050 each week? This would now total close to $100,000. Has council received this payment from the Warriors or have they been given special dispensation with ratepayers subsidising their court time? That is the crucial question!
  4. Nothing in Burke’s report allays our fears in regard to the above. Citing casual bookings is irrelevant. The McKinnon Basketball Association lost out on the contract allegedly because they couldn’t match the promised payment of the Warriors. Now we find that the Warriors are not fulfilling the terms that were promised. We have to again ask: how well did Burke do his homework? What analysis, if any, was made of the Warriors’ capacity to pay the agreed to price, when recruiting had, and still is, ongoing?
  5. We have to also question whether GESAC will ever be used for Women’s BigV competitions since GESAC lacks separate change rooms and a function area for after match. So much for proper holistic planning!

There are countless questions that have never been answered by this council in relation to the finances, the staffing, and the additional costs accrued in delivering GESAC. Residents have been like mushrooms – kept in the dark. Perhaps at the very least we can get a little more honesty simply by refraining from calling this a $41.2 million dollar project and instead admitting that with interest payments, staffing, legal bills, outfittings, costs of traffic lights and extra parking, etc. etc. the project will come in at close to $60+ million – if not even more. Enough spin we say. How about full disclosure on all expenses (itemised) and actual income. It is high time that facts replaced spin and residents knew exactly how their money was being used.

The fiasco and discontent that the basketball allocations have caused is unforgiveable. As we see it, the root cause goes back once again to the abdication of councillor responsibility and leaving everything in the hands of officers. Our previous comments need to be repeated:

  • Councillors must ensure that they have a leading role in sporting allocations. This is achieved by careful analysis of the relevant delegations to officers.
  • Sporting allocation policy (if one in fact exists) must be made public as must the criteria for decisions. The community plan states that council policies will be available on the website. They aren’t! Transparency is the victim once more.
  • If there is absolutely nothing to hide, then why, oh why, has council been so reticent to provide the full information that we have referred to above?
 

November 9, 2012

Now For 12 Storeys

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[12] Comments 

Tuesday night’s council meeting will feature the planning application for a 12 storey building at 1056-60 Dandenong Rd. The report by Ron Torres recommends acceptance of this application for 173 dwellings and commercial space, PLUS a reduction in car parking requirements. The proposed layout includes: 50 one bedroom apartments and the rest 2 bedroom, plus 264 car spaces. Apart from a bit of tinkering here and there, the developer’s application has largely been accepted intact.

In this post we will simply highlight and comment on various extracts from the officer’s report.

  • The usual blurb about projected population increases feature prominently in the opening – ie.”Glen Eira, amongst other municipalities, is identified by the State Government to have opportunities for increased dwelling numbers. We of course note the irony that in numerous VCAT hearings council has repeatedly argued that Glen Eira has already exceeded its projected increase!  How council can therefore use one argument that its population trends have been met and then turn around and argue that there is still a need for ‘increased dwelling numbers’ is simply unbelievable, hypocritical and totally expedient. Consistency, logic, and a real concern for residents is nowhere to be found.
  • Whilst new to this precinct the residential land use is consistent with what planning policy is seeking to achieve. There we have it! This council sees nothing wrong with 12 storeys!
  • The land is located within a State Government designated Major Activity Centre with access to services, public transport, existing infrastructure and road networks that can accommodate this level of development.  Interesting that there is not one scrap of ‘evidence’ provided in this report to support this claim. But it gets even worse when we find this paragraph – In addition, the intensity and scale of the development is considered to be consistent with the vision for the Carnegie Urban Village. Please note that the Minister’s Planning Zone Reform leaves height limits largely up to council. Is this what residents can expect from Glen Eira Council – the acceptance of at least 12 storeys in all its Activity Centres?
  • A total of 50 out of the 173 dwellings are one bedroom dwellings (29% of the total). These one bedroom dwellings are located on the east side of the building and their single bedrooms rely on borrowed light (ie The rooms do not have a normal window)…..It is recommended that a maximum of 35 dwellings (20%)_ should rely on borrowed light. No comment is necessary here – it speaks for itself!
  • It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in an intensification of vehicle movements in the area. But that’s okay it seems! Again, no facts, figures, analysis. We point out that the plan is to have left hand turn into Dandenong Road and right and left hand turns into Egan St. This wonderful sentence says it all – An opportunity to exit onto Dandenong Road  is considered to be significant advantage for this development site.

PS: Another item features the revamped minutes of the Local Law Committee. Tree registers dominate the minutes which state:

 “Classified Tree Register

The draft Local Law, selection criteria for classification and appeal provisions were discussed in detail. It was agreed to proceed with the process for finalising a proposed Local Law for community consultation in accordance with the Statutory requirements.”

We highlight this as another example of inaction by this council and its councillors. It should not take ten years for a council to fulfill a resolution. It should not take two years to “consult” with other councils as per other, committee meeting minutes. The public should not have to endure years of spin for no result. We draw readers’ attention to the following:

 

Minutes of 26th May 2003

 Crs Hyams/Grossbard

That Council send a letter to the Minister asking the Minister to protect the Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 66A Balaclava Road, Caulfield North and that Council Officers examine ways to protect this and other significant trees in the City.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

In these same minutes there was this public question which was taken on notice for a response –““Does Council have a significant tree register? If not then will this be undertaken by the soon to be appointed arborist?”

Yes, things certainly move at a glacial pace in Glen Eira – even when the mover of the 2003 motion has now been on council for eons and the chair of the Local Laws Committee likewise!

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »