GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

November 2, 2010

Agenda Items 9.2 and 9.3

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[3] Comments 

There are a couple of convoluted, confusing and curious items set down for decision tomorrow night. Both involve what is now known as Kimberly Gardens in Inkerman Rd. It appears that the following is about to happen:

  • The loss of further public open space
  • The potential for further private development down the track once this open space is lost
  • The possible absence of ministerial approval for the amendment of a Section 173 agreement
  • Deletion of agreement clauses without showing due cause such as evidence of ‘nuisance’ as stipulated by the agreement
  • A strange ‘in camera’ meeting on 16th March, 2010 which involved this property – a most unusual occurrence!

Questions to councillors:

How does the community benefit from this arrangement?

What reimbursement/contribution will council receive from this deal?

Has the public been told the ‘full story’ and nothing but the ‘full story’?

 

October 29, 2010

Councillors’ Bladders – Still a Problem!

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

Seems we still have the Revolving Door spectacle of councillors zipping in and out of Assembly meetings according to the Agenda items for the November 3rd council meeting. And again of note, the practically non-existent declarations of ‘conflict of interest’. Those bladders must sure be getting a working over!!!

Also of note is the fact that the Pools Steering Committee now also comes under the category of ‘Assembly of Councillors’ and according to the Local Government Act, all that has to be recorded is those present, general topics of discussion, and any conflicts of interests. Need we spell it out, that this is of course what is revealed here, rather than the more expansive ‘minutes’ that would let the community know a little more of what was going on!

As to the C60, still to make an appearance! However, Penhalluriack’s recent request for a report regarding meetings between council and the MRC has been tabled. Readers should be filled with absolute confidence when they peruse the following paragraph taken from this ‘report’ – “If Council wants staff of the Planning Office to attempt to identify the dates of meetings, that would involve time which would otherwise be spent addressing planning applications, amendments or appeals and it would be appreciated if Council would specifically direct that activity if it wishes”. Testy, aren’t we? Gosh, recording dates is really a tough ask. As for actual ‘minutes’, oh well ……….

Another feature is a 5 storey application  – again in Elsternwick. Guess we could start thinking about renaming the suburb to reflect the new ambience of high rise?

There’s plenty more which we will report on in due course.

 

October 13, 2010

Council Meeting: 12th October

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Kindergartens/Childcare
[19] Comments 

A report on last night’s council meeting is below. The minutes of course are not up as yet, so this is a ‘preliminary’ summary of the main events.

  • Elsternwick Childcare: Placards were apparently displayed by members of the Local Childcare Coalition opposing the imminent closure of the Elsternwick facility. Councillors (apart from Lobo) all trotted out the party line that childcare is not the responsibility of local government but rather the state (and federal) government! All of course were 100% committed to maintaining the centre – they just didn’t want to spend any money to ensure its continuation. That must be done by the State government. Chief proponents of this view were Lipshutz and co.
  • Hyams moved an amendment to the Local Law Review committee’s recommendations that Centre Rd be considered for potential naming as an ‘Alcohol Free Zone’. This was opposed by Lipshutz with the argument that we don’t need it; that the police don’t want more work, they will do nothing to enforce it and hence the job will fall on the already overworked council officers. The amendment was eventually passed with the acknowledgement that council isn’t committing itself to anything but that by putting it on the agenda for future discussions all options are left open.
  • Murrumbeena planning application. Placards were again held up with the signage ‘save our suburbs’. Instead of 3 to 4 storeys and 80 odd apartments, this development was ‘reduced’ to two storeys and (only 50) apartments. Traffic congestion was acknowledged as a potential problem!
  • Lobo attempted to raise the issue of ‘unauthorised sporting activities’ again, with his ‘request for a report’. There was no seconder, so the motion lapsed.
  • Penhalluriack requested a report on the discussions and decisions made between council and the MRC over the Caulfield Racetrack. Lipshutz queried whether this was necessary since it might create the impression that councillors did not have full faith in the officers. This was also commented on by Hyams. Forge then stated that perhaps any report need not be made public, but just kept to councillors. Penhalluriack agreed with this and assured everyone that he was not implying anything about officers.
  • Public questions again featured many from the Social Soccer Club. Responses were per ‘normal’.
 

« Previous Page