GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 2, 2011

Heritage Panel Report: 466 Hawthorn Rd

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

The Panel Report on proposed Amendment C83 has been released. Below are edited highlights –

The Panel is satisfied that the significance of the entire apartment building supports its inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. The Panel does not support the deletion of HO114. Rather, the Panel recommends a Ministerial amendment to correct the description of HO114 in the schedule to the HO which omitted 2A and 2B Sea View Street in error. This will ensure that the protection of heritage values is taken into account in future planning decisions.

The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment C83 process, including the Panel process, has provided the affected landowners with an opportunity to make submissions with respect to HO114 and for the merits of the Amendment to be evaluated. This addresses the mistake made when notice was given of Amendment C19.

‘In my opinion, all three apartments should be included in the Heritage Overlay. In fact, the rear two apartments are perhaps slightly more intact than the front apartment, as tapestry brick embellishments remain unpainted (these have been over‐painted on the front apartment).’  (Council’s current Heritage Advisor‐ Gabrielle Moylan 27 July 2010)

‘I would agree (with the Statement of Significance) that this apartment block, clearly influenced by the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, is unusual in the context of this municipality, and even beyond, and I think individual protection of the site is warranted.” “ Property is significant and will not write any strategic justification for removal of this overlay‘ (John Briggs 15 November 2010)

‘This building justifies the current Heritage Overlay….The two rear dwellings are integral parts of the whole, the building being basically symmetrical on the Sea View Street façade (which is somewhat unusual as side street frontages of such buildings are often simpler). This building is of unusually good quality’ (David Bick 26 November 2010)

‘In my view, both publicly visible facades, while different from each other in composition, are integral to the strong overall design, and hence to the heritage value of this prominent building. I do not believe it would be appropriate to remove the current heritage protection.’ (Dale Kelly 14 December 2010)

‘The site is clearly worthy of heritage controls…further research might be undertaken which would have the likely effect of amplifying the heritage attributes of the place’. (Roger Beeston 14 December 2010)

It was Council’s decision not to call expert evidence and this limited the ability to test at the Hearing the expert advice provided to Council. This does not mean that the views and the consensus opinion of these experienced heritage experts should be disregarded. Nothing was presented to the Panel that would justify setting aside the views of any of these heritage experts.

The Panel accords significant weight to the consistent expert view that the heritage value of the Site warrants the application of the HO. There has been no expert view to the contrary.

Council responded to the query from the Panel about why the Council did not accept the expert advice provided by stating that Council may form its own view. These responses do not support removal of HO114. Planning authorities have a responsibility to ensure that planning schemes have a sound basis. There should be good reasons when officer and expert advice is disregarded but none were provided in this instance.

The Panel does not accept the argument put by Council that removal of HO114 is justified by the fact that one quite different example of development influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright will be retained and all examples would not be lost.

The Sea View Street properties are in a Minimal Change Area, whereas 466 Hawthorn Road is in a Housing Diversity Area, which identifies areas suitable for more intensive housing development. These strategic designations do not override or take precedence over all other planning objectives.

The Panel agrees with ….(objector)… that it would set ‘a dangerous precedent’ if a strategic designation for more intense redevelopment was deemed sufficient justification for removing heritage overlays. The protection of heritage values remains a valid planning consideration in planning decisions. It could even be argued that heritages places make a particularly important contribution to the urban fabric in areas undergoing significant change, such as along Hawthorn Road in the vicinity of the Site.

The Panel was not provided with any justification to disregard the clear view of heritage experts that the significance of the entire apartment building, in its current condition, supports its inclusion in the HO.

The Glen Eira Planning Scheme includes 466 Hawthorn Road in a Housing Diversity Area, which identifies areas suitable for more intensive development. This strategic designation does not override or take precedence over all other planning objectives. Rather, where the Heritage Overlay applies in a Housing Diversity Area, local policy (Clause 22.07) highlights the continued relevance of heritage considerations and makes it clear that development should not compromise heritage values.

 

September 1, 2011

Public Questions, GESAC & Use of Council Logos

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

We’ve had a few comments regarding the use of the Glen Eira Council logo in the recent Warriors advertisement in the Leader newspaper. Several public questions were asked on Tuesday night regarding the allocation of basketball courts to the Warriors instead of the McKinnon Basketball Association. One of the questions specifically mentioned the use of council’s logo.

This is an important issue. It’s even more important since council is expending ratepayers’ monies on ‘legal advice’ to sort out the mess. Judging by the in camera items, this issue remains unresolved after weeks and weeks. If this is the case, then answers to the tabled questions are vitally important in terms of transparency and good governance. We are still awaiting the minutes of the meeting in order to cite verbatim the response to these public questions. However, the following is an approximation of what was asked and the response:

To the question of who gave permission for the use of the logo the response went along these lines – (a) Groups using GESAC are ‘expected’ to show the logo and that anyone who receives a grant must also ‘enclose’ the logo

‘Expectation’ is such a wonderful weasel word. Does this mean that the Warriors weren’t ‘ordered’ to use the logo? That their letter of offer even mentioned logos? That by osmosis they realised that this was ‘expected’ since we believe they are not recipients of any grant for GESAC use? It also neatly sidesteps the core of the question – did any individual(s) inform, tell, advise, instruct, insist that the logo be used? If so, then implicit permission was granted without formal council approval and without the issue of who uses the courts having been resolved.

We would also suggest that the appearance of such an ad (with the logo) in effect undermines the very deliberations that are currently ongoing. Any reasonable person seeing the advertisement and the logo, could only assume that (1) the Warriors have the full imprimatur of Council for their use of GESAC and (2) that a decision has already been made. We doubt whether this is the case.

 

August 18, 2011

Panel Hearing & Council Performance

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

This is what happened at the Panel Hearing yesterday.

  • Chair outlined the rules for the hearing but also noted that she had received an email from council the previous Friday correcting the Housing Diversity information – ie. that this did not apply to Seaview St. The report would be completed in about 4 weeks and Council had to make the report public within 21 days of their receiving it.
  • Council (via a lawyer) made its submission. Powerpoint presentation showing Housing Diversity areas and Minimal change areas. Admitted that report was wrong in that Seaview St is not in Housing Diversity but in Minimal Change Area. Stated that this is a ‘peripheral’ issue and doesn’t have any bearing on the heritage question. Showed photos and highlighted development in area surrounding the property – that is heaps of developments. Also showed photo of another building in Caulfield similar to 466 Hawthorn Rd. Talked about ‘administrative anomaly’ and owners not notified.
  • Officers sought authority to rectify this but councillors voted against recommendation. Said that submissions supporting removal of heritage had argued that building wasn’t ‘sufficiently notable’; building has deteriorated and cost to refurbish is astronomical; ‘restricts development; unfair that people weren’t notified; two objectors to removal and their arguments that this property is worthy of preservation and enhances area; removal would allow development and further traffic congestion.
  •  A planning conference was held and there were two objections one of which was queried because the person lived far away. Chair asked if objectors were notified. Council rep said ‘yes’ but objector at hearing said that no notification arrived.
  • Council rep then argued that council does support heritage but only if the property is ‘worthy’ of heritage protection. In this case council doesn’t think that this property is that significant and thus heritage should be removed. Repeated time and time again that the property doesn’t have sufficient architectural, cultural or social significance. Because of the Housing Diversity then the development of 466 Hawthorn Rd is ‘unnecessarily constrained’. Minimal change area is meant to protect neighbourhood character but allows some development.
  • In regard to objectors, said that no experts were present; no development plans had been submitted; since there are 3 owners then redevelopment would be harder and ‘more complex’. Also a restrictive covenant exists. So objections are ‘premature’ and people don’t have to worry about a 5 storey residential development occurring.
  • Ended up by showing photos of 445 Balaclava Rd (another Frank Lloyd Wright influence) and thus removal of heritage from this site wouldn’t remove Wright’s presence in Glen Eira – even though the Balaclava Rd property is different!!!!
  • Chair commented on the fact that council hadn’t called expert witnesses and that the reports she’d read had all recommended maintaining heritage listing, so why is council considering ‘otherwise’?  Answer was that council thought it was ‘appropriate’ for its view to be heard.
  • Chair asked that if the Panel found that there was heritage significance then the development argument of council would be down the drain and council rep answered that it would be ‘compromised’.
  • Since council didn’t call any expert witnesses and neither did objectors Chair then explained that a report is one thing but that the best way to test the report was to have the expert there for questioning. This would carry ‘greater weight’.
 

August 18, 2011

‘The Age’ Story

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning
[13] Comments 

Mayor’s husband lobbied on  heritage listing

Jason Dowling

August 18, 2011

Art-deco maisonette at 2B Seaview Street Caulfield South.

Art-deco maisonette at 2B Seaview Street  Caulfield South. Photo: Gary  Medlicott

A COUNCIL in Melbourne’s south-east is pushing to reject heritage protection  for three homes – one owned by the mayor – despite four independent heritage  experts and the council’s own heritage adviser recommending the houses be  protected.

A planning mistake recently identified by Glen Eira City Council showed that  while all three maisonette dwellings in the one building on the corner of  Hawthorn Road and Seaview Street, South Caulfield, were included on a heritage planning map, only the address of one home was recorded for heritage  protection.

When the heritage anomaly was discovered, council staff last year recommended  extending heritage protection to all three dwellings. But Glen Eira councillors  rejected the advice and voted to begin a process to remove existing heritage  protection from the entire site.

In a subsequent report to councillors in June, council staff advised  emphatically that the building should be protected. ”Both past and present council heritage advisers have reviewed the site and  concluded that it is worthy of heritage protection,” the report said. ”Council  officers also sought the further views of four independent heritage consultants …  all concluded that the property is worthy of heritage protection.” The state planning department also advised the council it was concerned about  ”the lack of the strategic justification” in removing heritage protection. But the councillors disregarded the officers’ advice and voted unanimously to  send the heritage removal proposal to an independent panel, which is now  considering the issue.

One heritage expert consulted by the council, John Briggs, said he would be  amazed if the panel did not recommend heritage protection for the three  dwellings.

One of the two dwellings (2B Seaview Street) in the building not currently  heritage protected is owned by Glen Eira mayor Margaret Esakoff and her husband,  Jack.

Cr Esakoff, who did not return calls yesterday, has declared a conflict of  interest and removed herself from council meetings discussing the issue.

Jack Esakoff told The Age  they bought the home before the council  identified it for heritage protection. Protecting it retrospectively would  penalise them, he said.

Mr Esakoff said he had lobbied Glen Eira councillors on the issue and taken  them to inspect the building.

But he said he had not discussed the matter with his wife.

”It is something that we haven’t even discussed at home,” he said.

Deputy mayor Jamie Hyams said the councillors also had not discussed the  issue with Cr Esakoff.

”She [the mayor]  has also made the point of not talking to any of us about  it,” he said.

He said the fact that one dwelling was owned by the mayor had not influenced  councillors and it was not unusual for councillors to reject recommendations  from council officers.

The Bracks government sacked Glen Eira Council, including Cr Esakoff, in 2005  after a report found the council was ”very badly governed”.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mayors-husband-lobbied-on-heritage-listing-20110817-1iy85.html#ixzz1VKkI0FOw

 

August 17, 2011

Let’s Talk Standards!

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

Let’s talk standards and how these are mangled one by one if circumstances so dictate! Today there was the Panel hearing for the c83 amendment. To refresh readers minds it involved the 466 Hawthorn Rd property – the one where councillors voted against 6 Heritage Advisors recommendations to retain heritage listing on the 3 unit, Frank Lloyd Wright influenced property. The arguments put up were: heritage listing ‘restricts’ development; it’s a Housing Diversity Area near public transport; the property is not maintained, etc. etc.

What is remarkable about this case (apart from the fact that the Esakoffs are involved) is that Heritage listing was applied in 2003. Yet the proposals for Housing Diversity Areas were cooked up years previously and based on a report dating back to 1999. Thus, in 2003 numerous properties were designated as ‘heritage listed’ and worthy of protection, regardless of their location. We now have the absurd arguments that because a Heritage Listed property is in a Housing Diversity Area it no longer deserves protection and will ‘restrict’ medium to high density development. Council cannot have it both ways! Either properties are worthy of protection wherever they are, or there is no property that should have protection if they are in an area designated as Housing Diversity.

To top it off, we’ve learnt that council’s Heritage Advisor refused to be a witness at today’s Panel Hearing – declaring a potential conflict of interest. It seems that the Chair of the Panel was none too pleased at this point since attendance was mandatory!

And we mustn’t forget the most cogent fact that it is ratepayers who will be bearing the costs for this Panel hearing. It is ratepayers who forked out for an extra 4 Heritage advisors recommendations – whose ‘reports’ by the way were NOT INCLUDED in the documentation presented to council and which councillors never clapped eyes on! Perhaps if they had, then the above expenses might never have occurred? So, whose fault is all this? Councillors who don’t demand full information in order to make informed decisions? Or an administration that drip feeds councillors only the information it wants them to have? And the most important question: how can councillors vote to go to a Panel in the face of 6 recommendations and the Department’s reluctance to endorse the amendment straight off? And are ratepayers really expected to believe that any ordinary citizen would be accorded the same
treatment and course of action that has been bestowed on 466 Hawthorn Rd?

 

August 15, 2011

From Bayside Weekly

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

Site proof of residents’ angst

GLEN Eira’s own Wikileaks-style website has generated more than 100,000 hits in its first year, many from residents slamming the council’s planning decisions and governance.

But acting mayor Jamie Hyams said it was hard to take a website seriously when contributors did not put their names to it.

Two full-time moderators and two occasional helpers have managed the gleneira.wordpress. com site anonymously since it was founded in June 2010. Some contributors use their real names, others use a pseudonym.

The site publishes council meeting outcomes, petitions, reports and letters to and from councillors which residents analyse and discuss. Recent issues on the site include Glen Eira Swimming and Aquatic Centre’s construction and the Caulfield Racecourse development.

A moderator said several councillors had posted comments on the site and mentioned Glen Eira debates in council meetings, which showed the site was making councillors aware of the community’s discontent. ‘‘We don’t want to merely be hitting a nerve, we want dramatic change in the way this council has operated for over a decade now.’’

– Rebecca Thistleton

 

August 10, 2011

Penhalluriack’s “Right of Reply”

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

May it please Mr. Deputy Mayor and fellow Councillors; I thank you for this opportunity to make this right of reply.

I was born in Freeman   Street, not far from here.  I’ve conducted a business in the City of Glen Eira for over 35 years, and have come to know and love its residents and ratepayers.

During those 35 years I have witnessed the changes in the Municipality and in its shopping and amenities.  I have recently recalled that our local Member of Parliament, Mr. Southwick, worked in my shop part time while he was a student to earn himself some pocket money.

I have now built up my business and employ fifty people.  And so, in the autumn years of life, I decided to contribute to the community as a Councillor for the City of Glen Eira.  In 2008 I was so duly elected.

It has come as a shock, and with great disappointment, to be handed a copy of an article appearing in the current edition of the Melbourne Bayside Weekly.

The article refers to a “legal stoush”, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Andrew Newton.

I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper.  And I can safely presume our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.

The article further claims that a ratepayer has asked Council for details of legal costs which Council has incurred concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer.

The article makes constant reference to the secrecy of Council and the lack of transparency in Council’s dealings. And, it is further claimed in the article, that the City of Glen Eira has been plagued by a lack of transparency for the past fifteen years. And further that the blame lies with the administration and not with Councillors.

It is a common proof that an institution practising democracy will consist of democratically elected members representing the populace, and of a Secretariat — usually permanently appointed — to administer the will of the populace.  It is essential that the democratically elected members can freely and openly convey the will of the populace, and that every effort should be made by the secretariat to implement the directions given to it by the elected members.  Council will share my regret that there appears to be a perception in the community of differences appearing between the Council and the Secretariat of this, our Council.

I have entered Council in the latter years of life with goodwill and an endeavor to bring to Council the hopes and aspirations of our citizens.

As I address this Council Meeting on questions of transparency and openness I find that I am the subject of an allegation that, as a result of supporting a motion relating to a mulch bin, there are rumours that I have a conflict of interest because the mulch bin was closed, and I happen to sell mulch in my hardware and garden centre.  Of course, like dozens of other local businesses, I sell mulch.  I also employ some 50 people and carry a range of over 26,000 different items for sale. Obviously such an ill-founded rumour is absurd.

I request and expect Councillors and the staff of Council’s Secretariat be supported in the event of ill-founded and scurrilous rumours bringing the City of Glen Eira into disrepute.  It is now in the interests of our great Council that a new policy of openness and transparency be created, and every effort should be earnestly made to improve and expand our existing policies of openness and accountability to our ratepayers and our citizens.

 

August 8, 2011

Bayside Weekly: Questions No Go

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[4] Comments 

BY REBECCA THISTLETON rebecca.thistleton@fairfaxmedia.com.au

 

GLEN Eira Council has come under fire from residents over its refusal to answer questions about a legal stoush between one of its councillors and its chief executive. Residents say the council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that Councillor Frank Penhalluriack bullied council chief executive Andrew Newton.

Rosetta Manaszewicz of McKinnon has asked the council to provide a total figure for legal costs in relation to Cr Penhalluriack. But the council has rejected the request, and refused to reveal whether it has consulted lawyers.

Acting mayor Jamie Hyams said public questions have gone unanswered because they were inappropriate or would breach privacy laws outlined in the Local Government Act. He said he could not acknowledge there was an investigation into bullying and harassment claims, as Ms Manaszewicz had implied in her question. Nor could he comment on whether the council had
incurred any legal costs.

Cr Penhalluriack said although he supported transparency in council dealings, he was unable to comment. “My hands are tied,” he said.

Ms Manaszewicz said she was also waiting for answers to questions about council expenditure on consultants and legal advice for the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre. Council officers were still compiling a response to her questions last week. The council had 10 working days to provide an answer. The deadline expired on August 2.

The latest controversy follows an investigation by the local government watchdog last year which found the council needed to improve its transparency. The Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate launched the investigation after receiving 43 complaints against the council. It recommended in September last year that councillors receive training in council practices and note takers attend all councillor meetings.

Cr Hyams said the council had worked to meet the recommendations.

Glen Eira Residents Association president Don Dunstan said a lack of transparency had plagued the council for the past 15 years. ‘‘I blame the administration, not the councillors.” He said the community had little faith in the council’s openness about how ratepayers’ money was spent.

 

August 7, 2011

More On Agenda Items

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

There is definitely something rather strange going on in those secret Councillor Assemblies. We were really taken with the 12 July so called ‘minutes’. Once again all administrators except Burke left the room and the item for discussion was listed as “Request from an Integrity Agency”!!!! We would welcome any input from anyone who knows what an ‘integrity agency’ is! Council really has the language of gobbledygook and obfuscation down pat.

Also worthy of mention is the apparent ‘doctoring’ of minutes once again with these little gems –

“5 July 2011 – Cr Hyams at (iii) (h) amend by substituting one word for another Cr. Magee, at (ii) (a) amend by deleting words. Level of detail included in the Records of Assembly”

What’s wrong councillors? Is too much being let out of the bag?

We should also mention that the 26th July meeting began at 6.46. Tang arrived at 9.15pm. Two more items caught our eye here – ‘Compliance with Local Government Act’ and “Occupational Health and Safety’. The latter we guess relates to Newton’s bullying charges against Penhalluriack since the latter declared a conflict of interest at this point. Magically, Newton and all except Jones had disappeared from the Assembly by this point. Again, we assume that this is to prevent Newton from declaring his own Conflict of Interest if the item concerned his bullying allegations.

Honestly, the machinations of this council would provide spy/thriller writers with enough material to last the next hundred years! Only problem is, that it is ratepayers who keep coughing up their hard earned money for all these shenanigans!

 

August 5, 2011

Manipulation Extraordinaire!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[9] Comments 

The agenda items for next Tuesday’s council meeting represent the absolute rock bottom in the history of this dysfunctional Council. The onus is now very clearly on councillors to stand up and question, and ultimately reject the appalling manipulation that is evidenced by these items. We’ll go through the most important ones:

  1. Local Laws Advisory Committee (Lipshutz, Tang, Pilling)

When the Local Law came up for consideration in 2009, the argument that several residents put forward was that the Councillor Questions Policy (ie. the ‘no surprises’ gag) should not be included in the Local Law. This was of course rejected! Now, funnily enough, we have the committee recommending:

“that the public questions process be removed from the Local Law and replaced with a right to ask questions in accordance with guidelines in force from time to time. The guidelines would need to be approved by Council.

Cr Tang requested a report as to the time taken up in answering public questions”.

When literally every other council in the state includes Public Questions as part of its Meeting Procedures within the Local Law, why is Lipshutz (aka Newton) and his gang determined to be different? What are the ramifications of such a change? And what little cute Dorothy Dixer is Tang playing at? We are also concerned as to the LEGALITY of such an attempt to abort democratic process given that the Local Government Act, 1989 states: “A Council must make local laws governing the conduct of meetings of the Council and special committees”. Public questions are part of council meetings and as such must be included in a local law!

2. Community Consultation Committee

Again in stark contrast to previous practice the so called ‘Engagement Strategy’ has now been left in the hands of Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz! The 12 submissions that were received are not published, no names are given, and it is this committee which is to make recommendations to council. All well and good, except that Council does not appear to have had any privacy concerns when it published in full, submissions to the Toilet strategy, and other minor ‘consultations’.
We can only marvel at the ‘selectiveness’ of this mob and how transparency and by implication accountability is sabotaged time and time again!

If there is nothing to hide and if the officers’ report is a true reflection of the comments made by residents, then why not publish the full submissions? Why not go to full council? We can only wonder whether ALL COUNCILLORS HAVE EVEN READ THE SUBMISSIONS. For something as important as engagement/consultation, what we have here is again a sham and an insult to those individuals who submitted and to residents everywhere.

3. In Camera Items

This is where things get really interesting. One item concerns the MRC and Crown Land. We thus ask: why is council considering it (and in camera) if this concerns the land swap between the MRC and govt? What of the subdivision? Why is the community again being kept in the dark?

Then there’s the GESAC legal bills over allocations, and ‘contractual’ items over GESAC. If everything is going so well (ie on time and on budget) then what’s there to mull over ‘contracts’ at this point in time? Or is the public again being sold a furphy on progress of GESAC?

Another interesting item from this section relates to ‘personnel’ and compliance with the Local Government Act! Gosh, another potential breach of the act by someone? Another Municipal Investigation perhaps? or more work for the Ombudsman?

There’s plenty more in these items that require careful reading. The ball is now in councillors’ court. Will they once again acquiesce without a whimper? Will anyone have the guts to open their mouths and demand answers to fundamental questions of process, transparency and good governance? Or will silence and complicity reign supreme?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »