GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

June 29, 2013

News Flash: Is All 100% Kosher?

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

We have learnt that the Alma Club application has already been sent off to VCAT PRE-EMPTING, in all probability, any council resolution on Tuesday night. Why? Because Council did not finalise the application within the required 60 day limit.

This is both extraordinary and inexcusable and, in our view, raises serious questions about process, and potential secret deals that may have to ability to completely sideline both councillors and resident objectors. To refresh people’s memories here are the facts:

  • The application was received by Council on the 19th March 2013 according to the planning register.
  • It was not until EARLY MAY that the yellow notice went up. Residents had until 14th May to register their objections. That makes it roughly 6 weeks that Council sat on this application before presumably doing anything about it or informing residents.
  • A planning conference was held on the June 5th.
  • The item was set down for decision this coming Tuesday – the 2nd July.

There cannot be any excuse for this inaction, especially since Council would have been fully aware of the contentious nature of the application and its value in monetary terms. All stops should have been pulled out to ensure that the time limits were adhered to. Why weren’t they? What are the possible outcomes for the current situation – given that we’ve learnt that mediation and a 5 day VCAT hearing has been timetabled for several months down the track? Several potential scenarios now rear their ugly heads:

  1. Any possible councillor resolution on Tuesday night is now a moot point and probably won’t go ahead
  2. The developer ‘in consultation’ with officers will either submit amended plans directly to VCAT, or again in consultation with officers work out various ‘conditions’. In both cases the parameters will be set and both residents and councillors will not have a say.
  3. Since a permit has not been granted, the prospect of ‘amended plans’ coming to a full council is most unlikely.

All of these scenarios raise serious questions about governance within Glen Eira; the role of the planning department and most importantly, who knew what and when. For example:

  • When did council officers know that the developers would be going to VCAT?
  • When did officers know or decide that the 60 day limit could not be met?
  • Do councillors know? Or do some councillors know since we’ve been informed that one particular councillor has been telling objectors to forget about appealing since VCAT will overrule anyway?
  • Even MP Southwick has got in on the act with an offer of ‘mediation’! Why, and what does he know that residents possibly don’t?
  • Why didn’t this well paid planning department get its act together on time?
  • Was this ‘delay’ in fact planned right from the start?
  • What ‘discussions’ went on between developer and planners? How often? When did these ‘discussions’ start?
  • Was there ever any discussion about time lines?
  • Has any officer actually kept records of these meetings and/or discussions as required under the Records Act?

There are many, many, other such questions – all of which only cement the already existing perception that all is not 100% kosher within Glen Eira– especially when it comes to planning matters!

 

 

June 28, 2013

Agenda Items: Plagiarism & Secrecy!

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

ALMA CLUB APPLICATION

As expected, the officer’s (Ron Torres) report recommends that a permit be issues for “up to 73 dwellings in an apartment style 3 storey building and townhouse style development of 2-3 storeys above basement car parking and a reduction in visitor car parking requirements….”. There were 58 formal objections.

It is worth commenting that this report contains much that is taken verbatim from the developer’s application. As to lighting and internal amenity there does not seem to be any problem in having people live underground – “It is considered the ground floor north facing apartments will have poor solar access as their floor level is substantially lower than the ground level at the northern boundary. Their living room windows are also substantially overhung by the balconies above. Therefore a condition is recommended to setback the first floor balconies to improve the amenity of these dwellings”.

On traffic and its impact on local and adjoining streets we have this: “…the expected traffic generation can be considered in the context of the traffic generated by the Alma Club (when it was operational). Therefore, whilst there will be a noticeable increase in traffic during residential peak times (ie weekday mornings), there will also likely be less traffic at other times when the Alma Club would have generated traffic, such as weekends. Furthermore, Council’s Transport Planning Department is satisfied Wilks Street can accommodate the traffic generated by the development. On balance it is considered an increase in traffic movements within Wilks Street as a result of this development is not unreasonable”.

Not one statistic to support any of the statements! And since when does 5 days of traffic twice a day compare to a declining club membership that is assessed only on weekends? Nor is there any mention of the major arterial roads that run off Wilks St and the safety issues involved. The only change that is advantageous to the community is the recommendation that a 5% open space levy be paid by the developer instead of the 4.75% that had been ‘agreed’ to previously.

All in all another dodgy officer’s report without substance, detail, and a far too heavy reliance on the proposal as submitted by developers. Surely when the community pays their wages it is not too much to expect that officer reports show some initiative and originality plus, providing a substantiated rationale for their decision making that is not authored by the developer.

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

First off we note that the online version of agenda has repeated one of the ‘minutes’ – meaning that one document is missing! The trend of secrecy continues unabated however. Notations included in these documents reveal that important issues that will have a major impact on the community HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED but not one word has come out into the public domain concerning these issues. For example:

  • Residential zones – at least 3 times
  • Referendum of Constitutional Recognition of local government
  • MAV state conference – list of motions. Again residents have no idea of council’s position on any of the proposed motions.
  • There’s another couple of interesting items that read – “Cr Hyams – letter to the editor in the Australian Jewish News from a Labor Federal member of Parliament. Need for a Council response to correct the record.” AND – “Cr Hyams – draft letter to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust relating to members of the public attending and addressing the Trust.” (Please note that Delahunty had raised this issue in a previous meeting); “Cr Hyams – a meeting of the non MRC Trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.”
  • GESAC and dispute resolution also gets a nod as well as in the Audit Committee report.

Finally it’s worth mentioning the item recommending the rescission of the Sustainability Policy and enacting a new policy. We have noted several times in the past that the arguments put forward by Hyams and Burke (when it suited them) was that nothing could be done UNLESS IT WAS CONTAINED IN THE MEETING PROCEDURES. There is no facility in the meeting procedures for a rescission of motion! If the argument is to be applied consistently, then this recommendation cannot proceed. But of course in this council we can only expect some glib sleight of hand to justify actions that suit the ultimate objectives!

PS: Also along familiar lines there is Newton’s report on the latest Community Satisfaction Survey. The entire report is NOT included in the agenda papers. Rather we’re told that it is available on council’s website. Unfortunately to locate the report will involve a ‘hide and seek’ expedition! The vital aspect of the survey focuses on residents’ expectations as to service performance and their grading of this performance. Below is the relevant information and we point out that once again the huge discrepancy between what residents consider as important and their evaluation of the actual service.

Pages from Community_Satisfaction_Survey_results_2013 PPS: We’ve commented on this previously but given the deceptive reporting of the VCAT decisions it is worth re-iterating. For the 20 Hawthorn Rd application which was overturned by VCAT, council writes:

“Council determined to refuse the application as it failed to satisfy the intent and objectives of the Minimal Change Area Policy, in terms of excessive visual bulk and poor interface with the adjoining residential properties. The development
also failed to satisfy a number of the ResCode standards    ‘.

Not only is this entirely disingenuous, but not does represent what the member actually concluded. In fact, Council itself ‘stuffed up’ big time. It did not even know the areas that were Minimal Change as opposed to Housing Diversity. Here’s what the member concluded:

  1. There is little doubt in my mind that the subject land is in a housing diversity area under local planning policy. As the purpose of local planning policies is to give effect to the municipal strategic statement (MSS),[1] it is relevant to start with the MSS. The MSS includes a Framework Plan the purpose of which is to ‘support and promote’ specific land use outcomes.[2] The Framework Plan, although indicative, includes the subject land as an area along a tram route where ‘multi unit development will be encouraged’.[3] The MSS adopts a targeted approach to meeting future housing needs. It encourages multi-unit housing in identified housing diversity areas. Land along tram routes is a housing diversity area.
  2. The housing diversity area policy confirms the subject land is in a tram routes housing diversity area, having regard to the  Glen Eira  ‘policy framework plan’ and the Caulfield North ‘Framework Plan’.[4] I will return the specifics of the tram routes policy shortly.
  3. That the subject land is in a housing diversity area is confirmed by the minimal change area policy.[5] The policy was recently remade with amendments in Amendment C87 of the scheme (C87). The Council exhibited C87 before deciding this permit application. In the ‘Policy Framework Plan Minimal Change Areas’ map in the scheme when C87 was exhibited and in C87 shows the subject land not in a minimal change area. C87 was approved and commenced on 31 January 2013 and after the Council decided the permit application. It did not change the identification of the subject land as in a minimal change area in that map. In other words, C87 has not changed the identification of the subject land as not being in a minimal change area.
  4. I refer to this history because the Council assessed the permit application as if the relevant policy was the minimal change area policy rather than the housing diversity area policy. This was an error. The Council has now decided that the identification of the subject land as not in a minimal change area for policy purposes was a ‘mapping error within clause 22.08 mistakenly introduced in Amendment C87’,[6] and has prepared Amendment C108 to correct the ‘error’.
 

June 26, 2013

Council Elections

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

Following the 2012 council elections the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) has released a discussion paper and an online survey.

The survey can be accessed via: http://surveys.infoxchange.net.au/s?s=2661

Discussion paper is available from: http://www.vlga.org.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Elections/2013/2013%20VLGA%20Issues%20Paper%20-%20Improving%20local%20government%20elections%20FINAL.pdf

Comments on developer contributions to candidates are featured at: http://www.vlga.org.au/Resources/Library/Vic_councils_probe_developer_donations_and_bad_candidate_co.aspx

 

June 24, 2013

Agenda: Budget, Council Plan & Open Space

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

There are several items of interest for the Special Council Meeting on Tuesday night –

  • As expected no real changes to the ‘draft’ budget and strategic resource documents. In other words, the recommendations and requests from residents have once more fallen on deaf ears.
  • Worse still is that no thorough explanation is provided for fee hikes. One recent public question queried why aged care residential bonds should jump an incredible $100,000 in one hit. The answer? – in line with the average for private operations. Questions as to fee increases for child care, also received the silent treatment.
  • Community plan (circa 2011) remains untouched except for an ‘addendum’ that is tacked on about 2011 census figures. No attempt to integrate these latest figures with what was written nearly 3 years ago!

Open Space Policy

  • Half a page is all that Glen Eira can produce as far as ‘policy’ goes on this issue.
  • Yes, open space levies will now be used for the acquisition of further open space, and/or its ‘development’, but this includes the Booran Road Reservoir which won’t have a penny spent on it until at least 2015/16. In fact the entire budgeted amount for the next financial year in this category is the development of Elsternwick Park at a measly $250,000.
  • Not a word about increasing the open space levy to at least 5% across all areas of the municipality when land is subdivided. Nor has this council made any attempt to introduce an amendment to give such a policy legal effect. Other councils such as Bayside, Stonnington, Port Phillip and many, many others already have such amendments passed or well on the way. The likely excuse for this inaction is that council is awaiting the Open Space Strategy Review! Reviews and Amendments are not mutually exclusive – the process should have been initiated years ago if the intent was to really ensure that developers paid their fair share.

Defined Benefits Scheme

Here’s the Swabey recommendation –

“That Council endorses the repayment of the defined benefit call ($7.120mil) by June

2015 in accordance with the following schedule:

– 2012-13 – $2.4mil by 30 June 2013;

– 2013-14 – $2.4mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2014; and

– 2014-15 – $2.32mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2015”.

We draw readers’ attention to the fact that here is an official council document that spectacularly fails to declare both the AMOUNT AND RATE OF INTEREST that residents will be forced to pay. We can only speculate as to where and how these sums will be buried in any further official documents.

As for up front disclosure of monies the ‘declaration of rates and charges’ is another case in point. On the issue of pensioner rebate all that we’re told is: Council Pensioner Rebate -$0.557M AND It be recorded that Council grants to each ratepayer who is an “eligible recipient”within the meaning of the State Concessions Act 2004 a combined rebate up to a maximum of $270 (being an amount contributed by State Government & Council) in respect of that land. Hence there is no admission of exactly how much Council is contributing and whether or not this subsidy has risen, declined, or remained static.

Port Phillip is far more forthcoming with its equivalent agenda item –

The City of Port Phillip offers a council rebate of up to $144.00 in addition to the State Government Rebate of $202.90 to all eligible pension card holders. (Agenda items – 25th June 2013)

On the actual rate increase itself, Glen Eira writes only in terms of the cents in the dollar. Anything to help disguise the fact that it’s another 6.5% increase. Port Phillip states clearly – The proposed rate in the dollar will result in an increase of 4.5% in Council’s rate in the dollar.

Whilst these last examples might be seen as trivial, we believe that they represent the entire approach of a council determined to continually downplay all the potential ‘negatives’ and to make it as difficult as possible for residents to decipher what is really happening.

 

June 21, 2013

Danby Vs Lipshutz & Kuran

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

Source: Australian Jewish News, June 21, page 23

A cheap misguided shot by Danby

Michael Danby’s blaming of the “conservative” councillors for AJAX not being awarded the Princes Park allocation seems to be a shameful display of ignorance and politics.

Given there are nine councillors, of whom three are Labor and two are Greens, Danby must be referring to the four independent councillors – as “Conservative” and “Liberals”.

If Danby is truly interested in AJAX playing at Princes Park he should direct the three Labor councillors, including his protégé Cr Delahunty, to support a fair spots ground allocation policy so that there might be a successful outcome for AJAX.

Danby is politically opportunistic by blaming the Jewish councillors for AJAX not being awarded the Princes Park allocation and then misleadingly linking the decision to the Liberal Party by incorrectly labelling the Jewish councillors as Liberals.

This is despite each of us running as independents and not receiving support from any political party – unlike Labour and Green candidates.

Danby’s ignorance of local politics is hardly surprising, given that he has not attended one council meeting in the eight years I have been a councillor.

Taking cheap shots at council officers and Jewish councillors who work hard representing Jewish community interests and the interests of all Glen Eira residents is easy.

Rather than “turfing out” the Jewish councillors, Danby should explain how the Laor government’s recent decision not supporting Israel in the UN is not evidence of his irrelevance and lack of influence within the Labor Party and not reason enough to vote him out in September.

MICHAEL LIPSHUTZ

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

Danby is playing petty party politics

I hadn’t realised how concerned Michael Danby was that he might lose his seat until I saw his letter because it is clearly the work of a desperate politician clutching at straws.

Clearly, accurate counting is not a trait of the ALP. He attributes what he sees as the Glen Eira Council’s ills to the Liberal Party, but only three of the nine councillors are Liberals.

There are also three ALP members and two members of the Greens, and one independent.

As a member of the ALP/Greens coalition in Canberra, perhaps Mr Danby’s desire to influence local government would be better served speaking to the ALP/Greens majority on the Glen Eira Council.

However, I’m suyre the majority of ratepayers would prefer party politics were kept out of local government and would not appreciate Danby trying to politicise the council, or giving highly questionable and self-serving analysis of council processes.

They would also expect to see a federal MP show greater concern about council governance, especially after what the Victorian Ombudsman had to say about the Labor-dominated Brimbank Council in 2009, when its councillors got improperly involved in sports ground allocations.

Instead, Danby seems to be trying to encourage our councillors to repeat the misconduct that ultimately saw the Labor state government forced to sack that council.

I would love to see AJAX playing at Princes Park, but I doubt Danby’s ham-fisted approach would do anyting to help that cause.

He should try to do something constructive rather than playing petty party politics.

BERNIE KURAN

 

June 20, 2013

Racecourse, Council & Government: The ‘Unholy Alliance’!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Open Space
[7] Comments 

We’ve received an email from a resident regarding a complaint sent into the Minister. Here is the response. Please note that the final sentence of this letter should read: “It is hoped that the Trust and the MRC will continue to work with Glen Eira City Council to monitor the use, and if required, improve the community facilities provided in the centre of the track.”

Racecourse Centre0001

 

June 16, 2013

Gardener’s Road Trees: Here Yesterday – Gone Today!

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

As we predicted the 80 – 100 foot gum that had its roots ripped out to make way for a $600,000 car park has now gone into the dustbin of history. Below we feature some of our earlier photos and the carnage that has (unnecessarily we believe) been wrought. Another huge gum along this stretch of redevelopment will, we believe, go the same way.  Questions must be asked and answered about what is utter and total negligence and incompetence:

  • What precautions did council take to ensure the survival of these trees? Did they in fact give a damn?
  • Did the right hand (ie contractors) know what the left hand (arborists?) required to ensure survival? Was there any discussion preceding the commencement of works? Where is this documented?
  • What is the monetary value of these trees and how much will it cost to come within cooeee of a replacement?
  • What does this episode reveal about this council’s transparency and accountability when neither the officers’ report nor one single councillor had the integrity to state that open space would be lost and that mature and valuable trees would be hacked to pieces? And why weren’t residents “consulted” much less any traffic analysis provided?

gum

roots

HERE’S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW

P1000148

P1000149

P1000150P1000151

 

June 14, 2013

Danby & The Blue Bloods!

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

Source: Australian Jewish News, 12th June 2013, Page 21

Time to Throw out Conservative councillors

A few weekends ago nearly 1500 locals gathered to support AJAX Senior Football Club when it recently played away at Princes Park in South Caulfield. Yet this club has been barred from home games at the ground by an unfair and unknown decision-making process wielded by the seemingly all powerful bureaucrats hidden in the halls of Glen Eira Town Hall.

Over a decade in politics I have observed with increasing bemusement the relative weakness of most elected councillors compared to the officials who seem to dominate Glen Eira Council. It must be said that the chief executive Andrew Newton of Glen Eira Council is polite and highly professional.

Many of the Glen Eira councillors are well-intentioned people but their conservative values dictated by the Liberal party have put them at odds with their community, have made them weak and they have not sought to bring much needed transparency to decision-making. New Councillor Mary Delahunty will make a difference.

Residents of Caulfield are fed up by the popular local footy club being barred from its local ground or by its over-development by a rapacious racing club fawned over by conservative councillors.

Sorry to say, however, the answer for Glen Eira residents fed up with overweening power of unelected professionals is more politics, not less.

Glen Eira voters must turf out the conservative councillors afraid to take on the bureaucrats.

Their replacements must run on an explicit program of asserting themselves over the civil servants of Glen Eira.

I am afraid that is the only way AJAX Senior Football will get to Princes Park, where so many of their boisterous local family and friends celebrated the opportunity for them to play in an “away” game.

 

MICHAEL DANBY

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

Challenging council on ground allocation

Regarding Council allocation Mayor Hyams has not quite got it right/ Ajax could have got the Princes Park allocation and Old Haileybury could have stayed at McKinnon Reserve.

Alternatively, Old Haileybury could have been sent to GlenHuntly Oval and shared that ground with Caulfield Grammarians, where no junior Sunday games occur.

That way, no existing ground allocation would need to be cut. Glen Eira Council could have catered for the existing tenants and also catered for its real community club around Princes Park – AJAX FC where the junior play on a Sunday.

So as Councillor Hyams has advised in Council Minutes – that Old Haileybury has been moved due to the need to give the Mckinnon Reserve a rest. It is safe to assume that Old Haileybury will be moved back to its traditional home ground for 2014 opening the EOI (expression of interest) process for Princes Park?

IAN FAYMAN

 

June 13, 2013

Racecourse, Governance and More Development!

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

There are some very interesting public questions as well as a few other events from Tuesday night’s meeting that are worthy of highlighting. First the public question on the Racecourse:

“At council meetings I note reports are frequently given by representatives who attend other bodies such as the MAV on behalf of council and reports are given. This being the case why do our three representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees never give a report, because it is absolutely impossible to find out what is going on in the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Do the Glen Eira Council Trustees realise that their residents are actually never granted permission to attend a CRT MEETING although this is advertised as being possible on The City of Glen Eira website as being the case? Is council prepared to take any action to ensure that the entrance to our reserve from Glen Eira Road is made to be more welcoming?

Or is council prepared to have the entrance pathway sealed and cleaned so that wheelchairs and prams do not collect horse excreta over the tyres and what action can be taken to remove the barrier at the eastern end of the pathway. A person in a wheelchair would have to reverse all the way to get out if unable to remove the barrier when in their wheelchair. This barrier has been in place for quite some time.

Could our representatives on CRT walk on this path and into the park and assess the situation in detail rather than speed through by car? Council came to a decision with the Melbourne Racing Club regarding this entrance issue and once again it seems the non-racing public has come off with a very bad result as it is being currently administered. Can our three trustees move to improve the situation for all residents of Glen Eira even those travelling in wheel chairs and pushing prams?”

The Mayor read the response on behalf of the Councillors who are appointed as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust. He said:

“Thank you for your questions.

1. The premise in your first question however is not correct. Whereas there are Council representatives on various committees and bodies representing the views and interests of the Council – hence reports are made to and received by Council – that is not the case with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.

Council is requested by the State Government to nominate Councillors to be appointed as Trustees. Council nominated 6 Councillors and it was the State Government that then appointed the Trustees. The three Councillors who are Trustees do not sit on the Trust as Council representatives per se but as Trustees. Any enquiries about the deliberations of the Trust should be directed to the Trust or to its chairperson, Mr Greg Sword.

2. We are aware that to date residents have not been granted permission to address the Trust. The decision as to whether a non-Trustee may address the Trust is determined by a majority of the Trustees. Council has advocated for the Trust to be more open and transparent, and will continue to do so.

3. Council has advocated for some time and continues to advocate that the tunnel entrance from Glen Eira Road be more welcoming and accessible to the public. It is for the Trust however to ensure that the entrance is clean and not for Council.

4. As Trustees we will certainly be raising with the Trust the issues to which you refer.”

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

The in camera report contains the following:

Crs Lipshutz/Delahunty

That Council

i) Rescind its 18 December 2012 resolution to appoint Green Home Green Planet Pty Ltd, ACN 137 823 360 as the contractor under EOI number 2013.030

Two points bear making here:

  • The Local Law does not have provision for rescinding motions as we’ve stated numerous times
  • This council appears to make its own rules as it goes along and when it suits. For example the recent resolution to enter into further ‘community consultation’ regarding the Caulfield Park Conservatory was made WITHOUT rescinding a previous motion that the conservatory be ‘restored’ and ‘redeveloped’.

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

Finally, there is this Request for a Report regarding the ABC Studios in Elsternwick. We have no doubt that since this has reared its head and has come up at a council meeting that plenty of ‘negotiations’ have already occurred and that the potential token ‘open space’ that Council might be granted will be offset by another huge, multi-storey development! Watch this space!

Crs Pilling/Delahunty

That a report be prepared on the ABC site at Elsternwick. This report should detail past history, current usage and outline the present future plans for the site. It should also identify types of community uses and benefits for at least part of the site and set out strategies and steps Council can take to achieve this.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) declared a Conflict of Interest as he lives in close proximity to the site.

9.06PM the CEO left the Chamber.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

June 12, 2013

More Spin

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

PS: Esakoff was absent and Magee arrived late – just in time for public questions!

LOCAL LAW COMMITTEE

LIPSHUTZ: said that the ‘two major issues’ were the tree register and local law 326 (organised sport). Tree register is council’s wish to identify ‘the best sort of trees in the area’ and can’t be removed without permits. They looked at ‘appeal process’ for trees on private property because they thought ‘there might be some objections’ by landowners since ‘people who nominate trees’ are generally neighbours. ‘Process won’t be nomination’ but a ‘panel of arborists’ who will ‘go around the municipality and nominate trees’. Appeals will be for damage too. Corporate counsel is ‘drawing up further provisions’. Hoped that at next meeting IN SEPTEMBER, there would be the ‘final draft’.

The other issue of organised sports had caused a lot of ‘angst’ so instead of changing the law and ‘making a mess of it’ they thought that the best option was to say ‘how we define’ and interpret. Claimed that this was the ‘common’ approach in ‘acts of parliament’ that they ‘tell you how to interpret’ the law.  For people with an ‘allocation’ they can play and those that don’t have an allocation can also play on surfaces as long as they don’t damage the grounds and they can ‘play there without fear of prosecution’.

On the ‘review’ of the ‘whole local law’ there might be ‘other areas’ that people want to speak about but that was for the next meeting in September.

COMMENT: not a single word was said regarding the alcohol free zones in Bentleigh shopping strip. Thus a major council decision has been made without any public discussion, without any public comment, and without residents being privy to the evidence, the arguments, nor the circumstances which lead to this decision.

RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS

Lipshutz moved an amendment that in any building of 3 or more dwellings that a sign be in the foyer informing people that there are no residential parking permits available for this building and people with a ‘disability’ or those people with ‘extenuating circumstances’ could apply for a residential parking permit. Seconded by Okotel. Lipshutz explained the scheme that residents could apply because there was ‘increasing pressure’ for parking and people park in streets so that residents ‘themselves’ can’t park in their own streets. Said that ‘where we have minimal change areas’ and ‘large developments coming up’ there aren’t parking permits. Said that they ‘wanted people to know’ that if ‘you’re going to buy’ then you won’t get a permit. There are other circumstances such as people becoming injured or are ill so that they should be able to apply for a parking permit. Claimed that often people don’t know that they won’t be eligible for a permit since few look up the actual permit papers so this will make it clear in that the developer has to have signs publicising the fact. ‘That means that residents can feel happy that their streets will not be clogged’. Said that this is also a warning to developers that council won’t be helping them out by ‘allowing’ permits.

OKOTEL: supported the amendment and said that every level of government needs to ‘take into account’ the needs of people with disability. Council needs to address the issues of parking but also to recognise that these measures mightn’t suit those people with ailments. At local level very important ‘that we do take into account’ those people with disability.

LOBO: said that ‘personally I don’t have any problems’ with the ‘exclusion’. ResCode was ‘hypothetical’  and ‘definitely not practical’. Outlined ResCode provisions (ie one car space for 1 & 2 bedrooms, etc.) Called these ‘nothing but a joke’ since today most couple both work and therefore have 2 cars. ‘Applying this code does not decrease parking demand’. Talked about alternate transport and who was ‘monitoring this’ and ‘complying’. Said that this all leads to the ‘destruction’ of people’s ‘facilities’. Claimed that Glen Eira had been given the ‘pill’ to solve the problem. On the one hand there is the claim that Glen Eira ‘is compact’ and on the other hand keep building. Mentioned the Alma Club and 75 unit application with only 4 visitor car parking spots – ‘the government can tell it to the swans’ that this is ‘sufficient’. At ‘this rate our suburbs are on the verge of being destroyed’. Reminded people that two years ago he claimed that we’re heading toward Calcutta and that one councillor disagreed and they had a bet. Said that the parking in Glen Eira is a ‘sheer schemozzle’ and the government lets trailers and boats to park in streets that only makes the situation a lot worse. Said that in January the issue was put to the local MP who was asked to take the issue up with the State Government. He is still waiting for a response.

HYAMS: Lobo is right on ResCode and that everyone knows that people who live in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments have more than one car. When they have applications they always hear about parking and traffic from objectors so this policy says if you want to live here then if you’ve got cars then you won’t get a parking spot. So this ‘encourages people to limit themselves to the number of cars’ they have and ‘can fit in the building’ so that it doesn’t impact on the streets. This is a ‘good policy’ and also solves one of the issues about people knowing this via the signs.

MOTION PUT: in favour – Lipshutz, Hyams, Sounness, Pilling, Delahunty, Okotel. Against – Lobo.

COMMENT:  Lipshutz obviously has no qualms in fudging the facts. The policy DOES NOT MENTION MINIMAL CHANGE. Secondly, minimal change areas are the major recipients of parking permits. Thirdly, council’s sudden concern for those residents with disability is quite touching considering that in the past there have been applications where disability parking has been removed and converted into ‘visitor parking’ – hence council has given permission for the REMOVAL of designated disability parking spots.

Lobo’s arguments are quite amazing we believe. As objectors pointed out at the Alma Club planning conference, RESCODE is a guideline. Councils can do as they wish in terms of residential parking permits – as we illustrated in a previous post. It is mind boggling that these councillors always manage to find convenient scapegoats for their own reluctance, and failure to address such issues head on.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »