GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

August 13, 2013

Residential Zones

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

Pilling and Sounness were absent. Lipshutz moved a motion that the Residential zones item (listed last on the agenda) be considered first. Motion passed unanimously.

Hyams moved motion and added that council writes to Minister thanking him for ‘translating our existing policies’ into the new zones. Seconded by Lobo.

HYAMS: started off by saying that this is ‘possibly’ the most “important planning reform’ in history. Council introduced in 2004 the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity/Urban Villages policies but this isk even more ‘important’ because these are ‘mandatory zones’. ‘So what we say goes’. That contrasts to the past where VCAT could ignore council because they were only ‘guidelines’ and this ‘will no longer exist under these zones’. Went on to speak about the 3 new zones and that together they ‘will cover 95% of Glen Eira’ and ‘every resident of those zones will have their amenity protected better than before’. Stated that Glen Eira is the first council to ‘achieve’ this. Talked about the 78% being Neighbourhood Residential Zones and these were all the previous minimal change areas. These will have 8 metre height limit; 2 units per block, 50% site coverage and 25% permeability. All of this ‘will preserve the leafy backyard character’ of most residences. Next there’s the General Residential Zone (previous housing diversity) and this will have 10.5 metre height. Said that there would be ‘two types’ here – Schedule 1 ‘in the neighbourhood centres’ and Schedule 2 along tramlines. These latter ones that abut ‘neighbourhood residential zones’ and ‘they will have increased rear setbacks’. Last is Growth zones and they ‘conform’ to villages and height limit of 4 storeys and ‘mandatory setbacks’. ‘These are great outcomes for Glen Eira’ because development can still go on but is ‘directed to the right areas’ whilst ‘residential areas are protected from over development’. There’s also ‘certainty’ which is good for both residents and developers. Back in 2010/11 when the community was consulted, people said they wanted mandatory height limits and ‘now they have those’. Also achieved increase in permeability from 20 to 25%. ‘That’s basically why we didn’t consult this time around’ since ‘we had the old Minimal Change Areas and Housing diversity Areas which were well understood’ plus they got what the community wanted. Said that even if they had consulted he couldn’t see how ‘we would have got a better outcome’.

Said that the zones are ‘applied’ by the Minister in ‘discussions with us’ and ‘we got most of what we were after’ because they could show that there is ‘adequate’ space for ‘growth in Glen Eira including the C60 Caulfield Village’ and because the staff had ‘such a good grasp’ of all the issues in Glen Eira. They could answer all questions and ‘put a case very quickly and convincingly’. Congratulated Newton and Akehurst. Said that existing applications would be considered on old scheme and it could take a year before all of these were gone through.

LOBO: said that residents have been saying that Glen Eira needs a ‘structure planning policy’ to protect ‘people’s greatest asset’. Said that many residents had ‘borrowed from the greedy banks’ or used their super money to pay out the banks and ‘free themselves from the big claws’ of these banks. So they are now realising that ‘good attention’ is needed for ‘good planning’. What’s happening in the streets is of ‘great concern’ and people are right because ‘the value of the property will decrease’ and they took this into account when ‘preparing the new zones’. Matthew guy created the zones ‘earlier this year’ and ‘he has a carte blanche authority’ and that this is ‘different’ to the normal exhibition and panels for amendments. The Minister ‘has amended the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ and included ‘many things that council wanted’ as well as ‘changes initiated by the Minister’ such as rezoning the Alma Club site and the Ripponlea ABC studio site to what was formerly Housing Diversity from minimal change. Residents got what they asked for ‘three years ago’. Now people will know ‘for certain what areas will be clearly protected’ and what areas will be developed. ‘With this, the wings of VCAT will be clipped’.

LIPSHUTZ: Glen eira is the first council to ‘adopt these plans’ and that’s because they have ‘vision’ and that’s because years ago Akehurst and ‘his team’ saw that ‘we neeed to have distinct areas to protect our suburbs’. Because these plans already exist they were ‘able to translate very quickly’ into the new zones ‘and that’s a credit to our officers’. “it is revolutionary’ because VCAT can’t now ignore. It’s LAW. Said that newspaper reports say that it will ‘stifle development’ but as he ‘lives in the area, I don’t want high rise in my suburbs’ . there are ‘appropriate’ areas for high rise but ‘not in many of these areas where we have fine homes’ or heritage, or ‘single storey’. The zones are ‘protecting our neighbourhood, we are protecting our municipality and that’s important’. Congratulated officers and ‘the government’ because the latter ‘had the guts’ to do something about an issue that has been going on for years.

ESAKOFF: stated that in the past VCAT only had to ‘consider’ policy and now it is mandatory. Was sure that there ‘would be far less applications to VCAT’. Noted that there are ‘other zones’ but they’re not included in the amendment and ‘they will be treated the way they have always been treated’.

MAGEE: Apart from commercial zones, there is now a ‘sense of security’ for developers because they know what they can do and get a loan easier. Developers can therefore plan better. Said that the 4 storey buildings around tram lines is only 2.2% ‘of our city’ and ‘you might actually struggle to find a block big enough’ to build 4 storeys because of ‘setbacks’ on top floor. So a lot of these could ‘end up being 3 storeys’. Said it was a ‘really good outcome for the residents of Glen Eira’. Said he bought his house in minimal change and away from main roads but his back door neighbour built 3 units and he can touch them ‘with a broom’ and that ‘this won’t happen again’ with these zones. Congratulated officers on ‘getting this through’ and didn’t think it ‘was a surprise because that’s the sort of work we do here’…’we are very good at what we do’. In the future council can say ‘no, it’s wrong’ and ‘go away’ to developers because they haven’t got it right. Also have to thank the state government in ‘being proactive and helping us get this in place’. ‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’

DELAHUNTY: ‘generally’ supports that this is a ‘good outcome’ but the ‘Minister sought different zoning’ for the Alma Club site and ‘that was done without any consultation with Council’ and she ‘finds this a little bit disappointing’ because he zoned differently there and could have also looked at the ‘old Open Space Strategy’. ‘It would have been a fantastic opportunity to have had that conversation’ with the Minister. The same goes for the ABC site. Also ‘at the start’ she had ‘reservations’ about the ‘lack of public consultation’. She ‘lost the argument’ on that one but ‘I have to say I deserved to lose the argument’ but since she wasn’t part of the 2010 consultation and ‘that doesn’t mean that the community’s views have necessarily changed’ so people got what they wanted. She’s just left with the ‘inkling of bad taste’ about the Alma Club and ABC sites.

OKOTEL: congratulated for the ‘very hard work’ by Newton and Akehurst and team. It was a ‘very quick turnaround to make sure this happened’. The old system was ‘plagued by inefficiencies and uncertainties’ for planners and residents so it’s ‘pleasing’ that there are now height limits and that will ‘certainly’ eliminate the uncertainty.This is ‘exciting and well overdue step’. Said that she ‘maintains’ that a ‘consultation process would have been appropriate’ and that since this was in 2010 this wasn’t the direction prior to the ‘submission being made to government’ and it ‘was a submission put to government and ultimately it was the government’s decision in terms of what the new zones look like’. But ‘despite that’ the decision is ‘very pleasing’

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

August 13, 2013

Chaos Til 2028?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

Source: http://www.probuild.com.au/projects/caulfield-village/

Click on image to enlarge.

August 11, 2013

More Wool Pulling!

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

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

Records of Assembly

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

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

PUBLISHING OF SUBMISSIONS

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

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

QUARTERLY REPORTING

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

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

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

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

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

Our favourite mangling is:

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

Measure: Investigation completed

Progress: – Completed

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

ACTION PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

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

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

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

August 6, 2013

Why The Newton Spin Won’t Wash!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

The State Government and Council’s strategy is transparently obvious [reduce amenity for all but start with the significant minority in “targetted” areas] and it continues an inglorious tradition started by Labor when Melbourne 2030 was released. Remember this statement: “The character of established residential areas will be protected through Rescode, and increased densities will not be achieved at the expense of existing amenity.”? Not that Council or VCAT ever took it seriously.

Yesterday’s announcement reaffirms the Government’s belief that it should be able to reduce people’s amenity without consulting them; taxation without representation. It doesn’t matter whether Lib or Lab or Brown, that is the principle.

Look at the huge chunk of Residential 1 Zone properties that are now about to find themselves in Residential Growth Zones or General Residential Zones. Where once they had ResCode, which included a 9m height limit, now they don’t. Council argues quite shamelessly that people will be better off because now there is “certainty”, since previously Council and VCAT ignored ResCode if it suited them. The same people who repeatedly abused the planning scheme are still in charge. What guarantee do residents have that whatever the schedules might say (and of course these remain top secret) that this planning department won’t continue with its old ways of handing out dispensations on countless of these ‘standards’?

Remember too that height limits only apply to dwellings or residential buildings. It won’t be long before we see some imaginative applications that push the envelope, quite literally. And of course, there simply aren’t any height limits for the old major activity centres and the main roads they sit on. Glen Huntly Road already has 10 storeys. That is the future – minimal ‘commercial’ or ‘retail’ and stacks of apartments.

Then there’s some seemingly random choices made, all without any transparency. Glen Huntly, which is a major activity centre, is now to be surrounded by GRZ. It has a railway, a tramway, 2 State Arterial Roads, and open space. Then look at what Council is doing to a bunch of Edwardian homes and California bungalows in Carnegie, which instead is to be rezoned RGZ.

The media releases remain silent on the contents of the Schedules to the Zones, yet the map does give a strong hint that at least some content has been inserted to replace “none specified” for various amenity standards. Who decided what should be inserted? Council staff. Council couldn’t even be bothered to vote on it.

The recent decision to refuse a Permit for Wilks St (Alma Club) is suddenly looking shaky, until such time as people can evaluate the implications of being rezoned to GRZ and Schedule 1 (no increase in rear setbacks). It’s no surprise that this has suddenly dropped its Minimal Change status and is now designated as General Residential Zone. In other words, 3 storeys is fine and 75 units in a dead end street is perfectly okay.

If Elizabeth Miller believes “the Victorian Coalition Government is delivering on their promise of protecting residents’ backyards” then she should be prepared to state how many backyards have just been condemned to being buried underneath concrete. I wonder if she even knows. Yesterday’s obligatory soundbite was carefully filmed in a tree-lined street. There won’t be many trees left when there’s no permeable soil available for roots in the targeted areas.

Will the State Government accept responsibility for flood damage when the drains are inadequate for the rapid runoff of water from these concrete ghettos? Does it have a crime strategy for the consequences of creating an unhealthy imbalance in demographics? Has it identified where the new sports facilities will be located?

Expect traffic to be managed when areas that you have to pass through have their population swollen by several thousand residents? There are no amenity standards for traffic congestion, no money to eliminate railway level crossings in the municipality, and it’s not even safe to ride a bike since Council/VCAT encourages street parking for multi-unit development [count the number of applications which seek and obtain a waiver]. Besides, the speed limits are generally too high for the population density. Will people be walking to their nearest open space? Depends how far it is. Yesterday’s announcement ignored that element of community well-being.

Clearly the policies behind yesterday’s announcement are unstable. If you increase the population faster than the jobs in an area, then more people will have to be travelling further distances at a slower average speed by less convenient means. Council admits its planning for an extra 18000+ people over 20 years, so it should be able to show its traffic modelling along with documented assumptions like where they have to go for work, recreation, services. Of course such detailed planning is not Glen Eira’s forte. The irony is that when council officers front up at VCAT and argue that the municipality has already exceeded its population forecasts, then that only throws more doubt on the figures produced by council this time around.

Planning for a community is so much more than trumpeting a bunch of discriminatory height restrictions. This entirely begs the question of where council has been for the past 10 years? No height limits throughout this time; no structure plans; no parking precinct plans (then or now); no Environmental Sustainable Design (then or now); no Urban Design Framework (then or now). It’s been hell bent on more and more development. This latest announcement only provides further evidence that the philosophy, strategy, and ambition remains intact. Glen Eira will remain the developer’s paradise.

Finally, we remind readers that in March 2012 the officers in their wisdom wanted to introduce a greater percentage of permeable surfaces but ONLY FOR MINIMAL CHANGE. Councillors passed a resolution that in part read: “Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to lower the percentage of impervious surfaces within the Minimal Change Area and Housing Diversity Areas.”. No such amendment has seen the light, so we can only conclude that once again a council resolution has been ignored or conveniently forgotten and not acted upon in a ‘timely manner’ as required by law. Now we discover that the ORIGINAL recommendation of 25% permeable surfaces will only apply in what was formerly known as Minimal Change. This is how this council works and residents need to be not merely aware but alarmed at how their rights have been continually trampled upon.

Last but not least, here is a glimpse into the future for all those areas with the nice little light blue lines marked on them!

August 5, 2013

News Flash: Newton’s Legacy

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[20] Comments

The following Media Release in our view exemplifies everything that is wrong with Glen Eira City Council. It typifies the secrecy, failure to inform much less consult, and the complete over-riding of resident aspirations. The inequity which is the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas are now ostensibly cemented via this announcement and it has been done without even the courtesy of informing the public. At the time of writing there is nothing on Council’s website. Councillors who silently sat by and allowed this to happen must be called to account.

PS: As an example of the deviousness of this council, we alert readers to the public questions which raised these issues and the blatantly dishonest answers. It is inconceivable that Council did not know what it claims not to have known, designed, and implemented.

“This evening 1 July, 2013 there was a news item on the 7p.m. news which featured a story about the new residential zone reforms in this state. It was stated that the Boroondara Council along with Glen Eira were the first two councils to be implementing these new residential zones.
Could you please explain to me why residents in this municipality have to learn these things via the media?
1. Has this council already submitted an amendment of the draft to the Minister? If this is the case then why were residents not told anything of the change?
2. The City of Boroondara has had this amendment C108 for discussion since March. What consultation is this council planning to carry out?”
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Council is not responsible for what is broadcast on any news program. Council does not know why the ABC reporter chose to mention Glen Eira, any more than we know why a similar story in today’s Age nominated neighbourhoods in Stonnington and Boroondara as the first to come under the new zones but did not mention Glen Eira. It demonstrates that you can’t always fully trust what you hear or read in the media, although, of course, the media is far more reliable than an anonymous blog.

Council has not submitted an amendment of the draft to the Minister. Boroondara City Council’s Amendment C108 proposes to apply planning controls to neighbourhood activity centres, which are shopping strips, and to enterprise
corridors, which are mixed commercial areas. It implements strategies and plans adopted or amended in 2011, and has nothing to do with the new residential zones. Council has not yet decided what consultation will be carried out in relation to the residential zones.”

Question 2 – “Given the significance of the proposed Residential Zone Reforms, when will council begin its public consultation on the introduction of the zones into the Glen Eira municipality?”

“Council has not yet decided.”

Question 3: (July 23rd, 2013)

“Will Council be undertaking community consultation on the residential zone reforms?”
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“The extent of consultation would depend on the extent of any departures from the current Housing Diversity/Minimal Change arrangements and that is not known at this time.”

August 4, 2013

Newton: Time Is Up?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

We found that CEO tenure affects performance through its impact on two groups of stakeholders—employees and customers—and has different effects on each. The longer a CEO serves, the more the firm-employee dynamic improves. But an extended term strengthens customer ties only for a time, after which the relationship weakens and the company’s performance diminishes, no matter how united and committed the workforce is.

But as CEOs accumulate knowledge and become entrenched, they rely more on their internal networks for information, growing less attuned to market conditions. And, because they have more invested in the firm, they favor avoiding losses over pursuing gains. Their attachment to the status quo makes them less responsive to vacillating consumer preferences.

These findings have several implications for organizations. Boards should be watchful for changes in the firm-customer relationship. They should be aware that long-tenured CEOs may be skilled at employee relations but less adept at responding to the marketplace; these leaders may be great motivators but weak strategists, unifying workers around a failing course of action, for example. Finally, boards should structure incentive plans to draw heavily on consumer and market metrics in the late stages of their top executives’ terms. This will motivate CEOs to maintain strong customer relationships and to continue gathering vital market information firsthand (http://hbr.org/2013/03/long-ceo-tenure-can-hurt-performance/ar/1)

A weak board will often after a period of seemingly successful management, effectively abdicate power to a CEO whose drive, charisma and ruthlessness have contributed to the earlier success. Lulled into a false sense of security by rising share prices and earnings, the board becomes reluctant to challenge the CEO’s judgement and falls into the habit of rubber-stamping his decisions. It stops scrutinizing detailed performance indicators, may allow executive compensation to spin out of control, and be content to accept management figures and explanation without serious question. Bruggisser, the CEO of Swissair, is a case in point. Here, a board of distinguished businessmen failed to challenge the flawed strategies that led to Swissair’s collapse. At the same time, as his power base expands, the dominant CEO begins to behave as though the company is his own creation, believing his own PR and no longer distinguishing between personal ambitions and those of the company. Senior management becomes packed with like-minded executives who owe their position to the CEO, and who are unlikely to challenge him. This compounds the lack of scrutiny and debate. The problem is exacerbated if the CEO role is combined with that of Chairman, removing another check and balance (http://www.imd.org/research/challenges/TC053-08.cfm)

…most evidence shows that CEOs stay too long, and can end up destroying value in a company. (http://www.ceoforum.com.au/article-detail.cfm?cid=6174&t=/Claudio-Fern%E1ndezAr%E1oz-Egon-Zehnder-International/The-timeserving-trap)

….after about 5 years, many execs start doing what they like to do and not what the organization needs them to do (http://www.transitionceo.com/news.php?id=41)

CEOs who also chair their boards naturally invite their cronies to serve on the board. Eventually you have a CEO surrounded with puppets who are only interested in preserving their board pay and privileges. They are not likely to welcome disruption or innovation, because that might mean more work.( http://www.lindabernardi.com/2011/10/03/when-should-a-ceo-leave)

August 2, 2013

C60: Compare & Contrast

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments

The following is taken from the Moonee Valley Council website. Comparisons between Glen Eira’s and Moonee Valley’s attempts to safeguard social amenity for residents is self-evident.

Planning & Building

Draft master plan and rezoning for Moonee Valley Racecourse

Moonee Valley Racecourse

29 July update

The State Government’s Advisory Committee has commenced a six week consultation process on the Moonee Valley Racecourse revised Master Plan and Council’s proposed heritage controls for the site. Residents living around the site would have received something in the mail from the Advisory Committee.

The community is encouraged to view the documents and put in a submission to the Advisory Committee.

Council is currently working on its own submission as part of this process.

Information sessions

To help the community stay informed and to understand the process, we are holding information sessions at the Clocktower Centre on Mt Alexander Road Moonee Ponds.

Sessions are:

Sunday, 11 August, 2pm-4pm
Thursday, 15 August, 6.30pm-8.30pm

To RSVP contact 9243 8888 or email mvrcmasterplan@mvcc.vic.gov.au

Council continues to be concerned about the major information gaps in the revised version of the Master Plan. These gaps and concerns are summarised below in the 18 June update.

More information on consultation process, how to have your say as well as copies of the Master Plan and heritage amendment documents can be found on the DPCD website.

18 June update

Council has responded to the questions asked by the State Government’s Advisory Committee about the revised racing club’s master plan.

While the revised master plan does make some concessions in terms of the scale of the proposed development, it still does not address some key issues that Council previously raised with the club. There are still concerns that the proposed master plan does not provide enough detail. Some of the gaps include:

Car parking and traffic congestion
The revised plan does not adequately show how the substantial increase in vehicles in the area will be managed. This includes both daily vehicle movements and vehicle movements when events and races are taking place.

Public access and safety
Council has concerns over the proposed access to the racecourse, where the majority of patrons would be funneled through a single entry point.

Layout of the site, new residential buildings and the new grandstand
Council doesn’t feel that the proposed layout is the best outcome for the site, and it is of concern that there would potentially be a negative impact on neighbouring properties.

Lack of significant open space
The location and size of open space within the site is insufficient.

Public transport capacity
The revised plan has still not addressed how the significant increase in demand for public transport in the area would be managed.

Drainage and infrastructure impacts
The site has significant drainage issues that have not been considered in the design of the master plan.

Heritage and significant trees
The proposed development would not retain any important heritage features of the site.

We are now waiting for the Advisory Committee to confirm the next stages in the process and dates of when they will undertake community consultation.

July 29, 2013

Some ‘Inconvenient Truths’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

Council has mastered the technique of not answering all aspects of a public question. What is responded to often becomes a game of semantics, half-truths and not so subtle acts of omission. We illustrate this from the following examples of public questions tabled at last week’s council meeting. The bolded sections represent those aspects that have been entirely ignored.

QUESTION: The residential development at 175 Balaclava Road, North Caulfield, is a toxic site which was not comprehensively remediated. The amount of permeable surface, if any, is much less than the minimum required. There is zero setback from Balaclava Road where the standard is six metres. There is zero setback from the side street, Elmhurst Street. Balconies and awnings extend from this development over both Balaclava Road and Elmhurst Street, and no fees, rents or other charges are applied to this occupation of public space. How does council account for this generous flexibility in application of the planning rules, and what is the estimated financial benefit that has accrued to the developer from this?

ANSWER: “The Town Planning Application in relation to the residential development at 175 Balaclava Road which incorporated balconies that extended beyond the title boundary was refused by Council. An appeal against Council’s decision to refuse the application was lodged at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT directed the grant of a permit which retained the balconies beyond the title boundary. This was not Council’s preferred town planning position given that Council had refused the application. However, VCAT did apply a permit condition requiring the applicant to enter into an agreement which, amongst other things, acknowledges Council’s ownership interests and would absolve Council of any risks associated with the balcony overhangs.

A condition of the VCAT directed permit related to the provision of a Statement of Environmental Audit prior to the commencement of the development. In order to comply with this condition, the Applicant was required to submit a Statement of Environmental Audit that confirmed that the site is suitable for the use and development allowed by the planning permit. In December 2008 the Statement of Environmental Audit was received and, as a result, the abovementioned condition was met.”

COMMENT: What is not stated is that the VCAT order was not the result of the first appeal, but the result of ‘mediation’ between Council and the developer. In other words the VCAT decision merely formalised what council agreed to previously.

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

QUESTION: What is Glen Eira Council’s current policy on rooms, balconies, and awnings that extend over public space from a/. residential buildings, and b/. commercial buildings? Is the public space so occupied leased or sold or is it a gift of space to developers? What legal liabilities might accrue to ratepayers from this use of public space?

ANSWER: Council does not support developments with balconies and rooms that overhang the title boundary. However, as was the case with 175 Balaclava Road, Council does not always make the final decision in relation to these matters. In those situations, it is Council practice to advocate for VCAT to require, via a permit condition, that the applicant enter into a Section 173 agreement with Council.

Section 173 agreements apply in those circumstances where controls are required outside title boundaries. Typically Section 173 agreements address property rights and protect Council, and in turn ratepayers, from risk.

A Section 173 agreement in such cases would explicitly state that ownership of the area outside the title boundary does not pass to the owner of the land being developed. The agreement also sets out restrictions on the owner’s use of the balcony /encroaching area. These restrictions allow Council to tightly control use and minimise risk. Generally, Council does not charge owners for use of the airspace, unless there is a commercial use. Owners are required to have appropriate insurance for public liability in relation to their use of the airspace. Section 173 agreements are placed on the title of the property and bind current and successive owners of the property.

Section 173 agreements are not required for awnings.

Council may enter into a licence or lease of the airspace above Council land.

Decisions of this nature are made on a case by case basis.”

COMMENT: what a wonderful word ‘generally’ is. It can encompass a multitude of sins without disclosing a single thing. This response makes it clear that:

There is no formal policy on gifting the public realm to developers
Nor are they asked to always pay for this largesse
Contradictions do not appear to worry Council either – for example, please compare the opening and penultimate sentences in this response (underlined)!

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

QUESTION: Will Council be undertaking community consultation on the residential zone reforms?

ANSWER: The extent of consultation would depend on the extent of any departures from the current Housing Diversity/Minimal Change arrangements and that is not known at this time.”

COMMENT: Here is further evidence that there will NOT BE ANY PUBLIC CONSULTATION on the residential zones, except in the most trivial and unavoidable areas such as amending the East St.Kilda student housing areas from Minimal Change to Housing Diversity since this is already fait accompli with 5 storey permits granted and Council’s failure to adhere to its own policy as pointed out several times by VCAT members. As for the rest of the municipality it is clear that council intends to rubber stamp the current scheme without community input!

July 27, 2013

Where Are We Headed?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[3] Comments

In what must be considered the most reactionary and one sided ‘discussion paper’ that this government has ever produced we now have the Councillor Conduct and Governance Reform effort. Public submissions are called for – yet we note that the submission period is less than 3 weeks; that the ‘call’ received practically no publicity; and that the authors of the report are most likely to be CEOs and other bureaucrats.

We have uploaded the full paper and the relevant link to the department’s site may be accessed at: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/news-and-events/news/conduct-and-governance-discussion-paper

A taste of what is ‘suggested’ follows:

July 26, 2013

Consultation Committee: Terms of Reference

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[5] Comments

Item 9.8 involved the terms of reference for the community consultation committee. We urge all readers to pay careful attention to the stated ‘function and role’. It reads:

“To make recommendations to Council in relation to the ways in which Council consults with residents,ratepayers and other stakeholders in the community to ensure maximum participation, communication and value to the community”.

In other words, the committee’s function is basically to partake ONLY in the mechanics of consultation, rather than providing direct input into any form of decision making as to the outcomes of these consultations. This important area of course, will be left first to the administrators and then councillors we presume. Thus only the first step in the ‘consultation’ continuum is being met and that is how to ‘engage’ with people – full stop. This committee is not granted any powers beyond that. It will presumably have no say in assessment, review, or participation in any decision making on the results of the ‘consultation’.

Nor do we believe it’s an ‘accident’ that the very important word REVIEW is now missing from these new terms of reference. The term was present in the original 2011 version. Also gone is the requirement that the committee meets at least 4 times a year. This has now been replaced with “as and when required”. Not that most committees do meet 4 times a year, but the omission we believe is significant in that it further erodes any formal structures and rules that should govern the running of such committees. Finally, as we’ve already noted, there is mention of ‘agreed criteria’ for the selection of community reps, but these are not provided, and definitely not made public. We can only speculate as to whether or not they even exist!

Following is the actual ‘debate’ on this item. Readers should carefully consider comments made by councillors and how the very notion of ‘consultation’ is watered down to practically nothing. Hyams’ hallmarks of ‘success’ such as the e-newletter and the notice boards are damning in themselves. Residents are lucky to receive 2 newsletters per year, and as a previous post pointed out, the notice boards were discussed, and discussed, and discussed for at least 2 years before little plastic boxes appeared in Glen Eira streets. Great achievements we say in open consultation, transparency and accountability!

Delahunty moved the motion and Lobo seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said that they had ‘long discussions’ about the number of community reps. She would like to ‘see more’ but happy with the current recommendation of 4. Went on to say that the ‘role and function is quite important’ in that recommendations about ‘the way we talk to residents’ is included and can then become the basis for ‘conversations’ with a ‘broad range of people’. Thought that ‘this is great’ and will help keep things ‘relevant’.

LOBO: couldn’t add much to Delahunty, and said this was ‘just streamlining’ of the terms of reference. Noted that the only thing that’s changed is ‘that the chair does not have the extra vote’. ‘So that will be a very interesting committee meeting’. Hoped that once the community reps were appointed they would be able to ‘steer this committee to heights that” the community would like in ‘the name of transparency’.

SOUNNESS: asked whether the terms of reference have ‘to follow certain forms’ and why this seemed to be different?

WAIT: answered that ‘they don’t’ have to follow any form and that each committee’s terms of reference can be different.

HYAMS: said that the committee began in ‘last term of council’ ‘at my suggestion’. Said that ‘most issues were decided by consensus’. Said that it’s important to ‘consult with the community’ but also that they ‘do so effectively’ and keep on improving. Claimed there were a ‘number of good initiatives’ from the committee such as the ‘e-newsletter’ and ‘community notice-boards’ and hoped to see ‘future improvements’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates