The pattern continues – the more likely there will be objections to development applications the less notification residents receive. Readers should note that Nicholson St., is exceedingly narrow and contains well over 100 properties along the entire stretch of road and surrounds. Hence 13 properties is barely 10%!
| Site | Proposal | Notifications | Objections | Officer’s Recommend’s |
| 95 Nicholson St. | 3 storey; 25 dwellings | 13 properties; 28 notices sent | 87 | Yes – 22 dwellings |
| 650 Centre Rd | 3 storey; 16 dwellings | 18 properties; 42 notices | 27 | No |
| Tennis courts – Bignell Road | Flood lights | 35 properties; 43 notices | 1 | Yes |
Audit Committee Minutes:
“The Chairman noted the report on the mulch bin at Glen Huntly Park and concluded that no action was required by the Audit Committee. If Councillors had any issues, they could raise them with the Council.”
“Councillor Lipshutz stated that Councillors and the Mayor should have a bigger role to fulfil in an emergency situation, particularly in relation to media releases and public communications”.
Racecourse Advisory Committee Minutes
“At the invitation of the Chair, the Mayor reported on a meeting by the Mayor and CEO with the Minister for Planning, the Minister for Racing and the Member for Caulfield held on 1 March.
The Committee discussed the issues.” (Very informative!)
Readers should note the apologies!!!! – Tang and Lipshutz!!!
Record of Assembly
“Cr Pilling – Council free Mulch facility to be closed immediately”.
The audit committee doesn’t see a problem with the mulch heap, but obviously other councillors apart from Penhalluriack do!
Marlborough Reserve Consultation
In typical Glen Eira fashion, the ‘results’ of this two month ‘consultation’ process are fudged, distorted and do not accurately portray the comments made by residents. We’re told that:
“Of the submissions received:
- • 7 comments generally supported the plans;
- • 4 submissions suggested either replacing or incorporating a multi purpose sports area;
- • 3 people suggested the dog enclosure needed to be modified to meet their individual needs;
- • 2 people raised concerns about additional users to the park;
- • 2 comments suggested additional facilities such as walking tracks;
- • 1 submission would like to see the open space retained; and
- • 1 submission suggested another use (community garden)”.
This summary is not only very selective, but misleading. There are at least 3 comments which support the idea of a native/community garden. There are also comments made about the location of the proposed dog agility park – these are not recorded! What we do get is the same old pattern of dismissal without evidence and without a clearly explained rationale. For example: “A community garden was suggested as part of the online feedback; however there is not an identified need for a community garden in this area and this has not been considered further.” Exactly what does ‘identified need’ mean – especially when no analysis has been undertaken to even determine whether this is ‘needed’. Spin, and more spin, that simply discards out of hand suggestions which do not fit into the pre-determined plan!
NEWTON’S RESPONSE
A response to Penhalluriack Questions were taken on notice. We’ll report on this in the coming days.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
The preamble to this ‘engagement’ policy states: “The strategy provides clear guidance about how Council will engage with the Glen Eira community and outlines its approach to community engagement including methodologies, tools and techniques”. Yet when we get to the actual detail of how and when this policy will operate we simply find the following nebulous, and vague assertions. Residents will be ‘engaged’ only when an issue –
“significantly affects the community”
“considerably affects the way services are provided”.
“likely to generate community concern”
Where Council needs more information on which to make an informed decision which will have a major impact.”
What is the definition and the difference between ‘significant’, ‘considerable’, and ‘likely’? Who makes these decisions? On what bases are they made? What multiple methods will subsequently be employed? What is the criteria for when multiple methods be employed?
In short, we believe that the ‘engagement’ policy is nothing more than an extended version of the current 6 step consultation policy. The only difference is the abundance of motherhood statements, the soft and fluffy feel, and generalities upon generalities. Detail as always is absent. Perhaps the best summation is the following:
“Community engagement processes will be regularly reviewed and evaluated to ensure that they adequately capture community views, that methods are accessible, timely and easy to use for community members and any appropriate improvements be made to Council processes.” No mention as to HOW this evaluation will be conducted and by WHOM! Nor is there any definition of ‘regularly’ and ‘adequately’. Words and words and words that signify nothing – apologies to Bill Shakespeare!
The final sleight of hand occurs in the table that claims “This information has been taken from the International Association for Public Participation.” Do not be deceived! The Glen Eira version of the Association’s Toolkit is like comparing chalk and cheese. We’ve uploaded the original so that readers may compare what’s been left out; how language has been ‘massaged’ and the limited interpretation that Glen Eira sets on objectives, methodology and rationale.
Glen Eira Debates 