GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

August 20, 2024

Council’s Stand On Housing Targets

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[8] Comments 

After two months of total silence on the proposed state government housing targets, council has produced its formal submission on the matter. Readers should remember that Glen Eira has been told that its target will be 65,000 net new dwellings by 2051 – that is a doubling of the current housing numbers.

The submission does highlight what most other councils have complained about – ie.lack of detail; lack of strategic justification; lack of funding for essential infrastructure; importance of open space and the failure to consult with councils and community. But, unlike other councils’ submissions which are currently available, Glen Eira in both tone and content baulks at truly trying to protect the municipality. Here’s some of what other councils had to say in their submissions.

Stonnington

The Council’s attempts to engage in meaningful consultation with the State Government to ensure that the needs of the local community are met have been largely ignored.

On behalf of its local community, Council challenges the State Government to do better in future developments, in areas such as:

• High quality design of buildings, landscaping and public realm

• On-site provision of wraparound services to support community wellbeing

• the significant impacts to existing public facilities on which current and future residents will rely (for instance overshadowing of open space and recreation facilities)

• sufficient provision of useable, activated and safe open space and on-site amenity relative to the increase in population

• Embed decision-making processes that respond to site context, elevate sustainable design and value the voice of all stakeholders; increasing rigour through efficient and transparent planning approval processes, and at its core, the delivery of long term sustainable housing and services that are fit-for-purpose and support residents to thrive in the community.

Bayside

Council has grave concerns about the draft housing target for Bayside. The target of 31,000 additional homes has the potential to irrevocably change Bayside’s character and undermine the strategic planning framework that has been put in place tomanage and facilitate growth, whilst maintaining the liveability and character of themunicipality.

Council is concerned about the preparation, and release, of housing targets which vastly contradict current planning with no engagement with Councils, community or industry bodies. Furthermore, releasing these targets directly to the media without engagement or warning to industry bodies further fuels unnecessary concern in the community

Frankston

While Metropolitan and Major Activity Centres are locations identified for change and growth, the right balance must be struck to ensure that strategic planning for these centres ensures the right outcomes. It is important that development, open space and streets have access to sunlight, that built form is responsive to its environment, streets are of a human scale and that these centres remain liveable – the very essence of Melbourne, ‘the world’s most liveable city’.

Hobson’s Bay

The current Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme and its zones and overlays for the municipality, based on the Housing Capacity assessment from 2019, has a significantly lower capacity than the State’s June 2024 draft Housing Targets and at present, the Housing Targets cannot be accommodated in Hobsons Bay

The best that Glen Eira can come up with is – The submission argues that the housing targets of 65,000 additional new dwellings for Glen Eira should be revised down to 55,000 to reflect the capacity identified in Glen Eira’s Housing Strategy 2022. The Housing Strategy was underpinned by detailed neighbourhood character assessments and a housing capacity and demand analysis as well as extensive community consultation.

No real mention in the Glen Eira submission of: neighbourhood character, sunlight, or flooding risk (council’s overlays date back to 2005!!!!). Again, readers should remember that the Housing Strategy was voted in by the skin of its teeth and as far as consultation goes this was nothing but a sham when over 110 people attended a meeting at the town hall and voiced various objections. This did not even rate a mention in the summary report. Council also refused to release the community surveys. All we got was a bogus ‘summary report’.

Whilst council might not agree with 65,000 new dwellings, they are happy with 55,000 arguing that this is based on the ‘capacity’ analysis which accompanied the Housing Strategy. Several points need to be borne in mind here:

  • The capacity analysis was completed in 2021. How many sites have now been developed in the last three years which reduce the figure of 55,000?
  • What is totally ignored and unstated in the council submission is that the capacity analyses that landed on the figure of 55,000 was Scenario 3 which mooted the removal of the mandatory garden requirement for all 7000+ properties zoned GRZ. The subsequent amendment decided against this move. Hence, there is less land available for development and certainly less than the cited 55,000.
  • When the analysis was done, not all of the subsequent heritage listed properties were done,  dusted, and gazetted. Several amendments are still waiting to be gazetted. Again, this removes the ability to increase units per site and is again ignored in the latest council document.
  • To settle on a figure of 55,000 as suitable and appropriate is literally mind boggling and strategically impossible to justify given all the above.

To base planning completely on a fictional housing capacity figure as the state government insists upon is untenable. If this were the case, then in all probability most councils could have capacity for 100,000 new dwellings. It would be easy to achieve by simply allowing towers of 20 to 30 storeys in all activity centres and ignoring the environment, heritage, required infrastructure, and the contentious issue of ‘neighbourhood character’. Even a ‘reduction’ to 55,000 as council has done would spell disaster for many of our suburbs.

WHAT DOES THE SUBMISSION SAY?

On some of the most important issues Glen Eira sticks to the current pro-development ideology. Here are some of them –

Social/Affordable housing

Instead of fully supporting the introduction of a MANDATORY aspect to the provision of social/affordable housing, Glen Eira instead argues:

….Council cautions against introducing a system that makes all new housing more expensive to subsidise affordable housing and one that potentially makes it even more difficult to build new housing in a climate where land and construction costs are already very expensive.

In other words, nothing should be mandatory. Compare this approach to some of the other councils’ submissions –

Frankston – An easier, mandatory affordable housing mechanism must be considered as part of the Plan for Victoria, prioritising locations that are close to services, jobs and transport and in locations where there is a cluster of key workers, such as a health and education precinct.

Moonee Valley – argues for Mandatory planning controls in the Victorian Planning Provisions to deliver social and affordable housing at scale.

Mandatory controls versus the current ‘performance based’ process

It would appear that for Glen Eira mandatory controls should be severely limited. Again, this flies in the face of what other councils have put forward. In terms of deciding planning applications, Glen Eira comes down firmly on the side of ‘let’s have flexibility’ and let planning officers decide rather than adhering to mandatory/ prescriptive standards. Here’s how this is argued:

Council’s urban planners do an excellent job in negotiating improved outcomes on developments, and while some of what they do could be codified, their work sees better outcomes than if much of what they do were to be codified.

In other words, ‘we don’t want mandatory standards’ where it might impact on developers!!!!! Is this why these officers are incapable of ensuring more than a 5% social housing component, or a paltry 150 such dwellings in a yield of 3000+ for the Virginia Estate project? Why can other councils ‘negotiate’ up to 20% for a social housing component?

Data Presented in the Glen Eira Submission

Featured prominently in the Glen Eira document are several tables including the number of permits granted, as well as dwellings completed in various years. We take issue with what is presented and ask: is the divergence from publically available data deliberate? Where are the explanations for how this data has been compiled and accounted for?

Here are two tables where the figures are so skewed it is truly remarkable.

The first table is supposed to tell us how many developments of 10 or more dwellings were either completed, underway, or not yet started between 2018-2023. There is no breakdown of year to year. We have resorted to the state government’s Urban Design Development program which is based on data presented by council. This site presents what has been completed, or under construction, or ‘firm’ (ie with a permit) for various years. See: https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/udpmap/

We have concentrated solely on the results for 2022. According the map share data, the ‘completion’ rate is well above council’s claim of only 16 for a 5 year period. We have only bothered to look at some of the areas and our totals are well and truly above what council claims. Here is a shortened list for 2022 alone. We did not bother to go through other years ‘completion’ rates! If for simply one single year there have been at least 14 completed projects, then how on earth can council claim THAT FOR A 5 YEAR PERIOD THE TOTAL NUMBER IS 16?

27-29 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 31 dwellings

277-279 Centre road, Bentleigh – 36 dwellings

98-100 Truganini Road, Carnegie – 34 dwellings

1240-1248 Glen Huntly Road, Carnegie – 104 dwellings

285-287 Neerim road, Carnegie – 47 dwellings

54 Kambrook Road, Caulfield – 54 dwellings

80 Hotham Street, St.Kilda – 10 dwellings

96-100 Truganini road, Carnegie – 12 dwellings

22-26 Ridell Street, Elsternwick – 24 dwellings

34-36 Jersey Parade, Carnegie – 16 dwellings

1110-1112 Dandenong Road, Carnegie – 38 dwellings

29-31 Jersey parade, Carnegie – 10 dwellings

1.111 Normanby Road, Caulfield North – 283 dwellings

45-47 Kangaroo Road, Murrumbeena – 15 dwellings

The second council table is also open to query.

This is supposed to tell us how many permits were granted for 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. dwellings. We are told that for the year 2023, only ONE permit was granted for 5 dwellings. Then why does council’s own planning register reveal that there have been at least 3 such permits granted. Here are the addresses and the dates permits were granted – all according to the online planning register –

90-92 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 5 lot subdivision – permit issued 14/10/2023

76 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 (NOD -4/7/2023 and amended permit granted 18/8/2023)

14 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – permit issued 6/12/2023

All of this brings us to the central question: If we can’t trust council data, then how on earth can we trust their decision making? Or is all data simply geared to producing one single desired result? Who is accountable for this?

This has been an extremely long post for which we beg indulgence from our readers. However, it does go to the heart of what we believe is wrong in Glen Eira. Namely:

  • A refusal to take a far more critical and public stand against government policy as countless other councils continue to do
  • The continued publication of data that is both suspect and misleading and proffered as absolute ‘fact’
  • The continued preference to leave ‘control’ basically in the hands of officers, rather than see the introduction of essential mandatory standards
  • The failure to introduce any processes that can benefit the community – ie developer contribution levies, as well as opting for more than 5% for a social housing component in all major projects

Until residents can have absolute trust in this administration, or in councillors that are truly fulfilling their roles of oversight, questioning, and listening to the community, we will continue along this same path that ignores all that the community has stated again and again is fundamental to its ‘liveability’.

 

July 24, 2024

Consultation!!!!

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

Last night’s council meeting unanimously passed the ‘updated’ Community Engagement Strategy/Policy. It was lauded as foundational to everything council did and how important community feedback was. There was not one reference to the quality of the ‘engagements’, the value of the continued pathetic surveys, nor the validity and accuracy of the various consultation summary reports.

We illustrate how skewed and manipulated these summary reports are by analysing the most recent effort – the fenced off leash area in the Caulfield Racecourse.

Here is a summary of what we’re told:

  • There were 368 comments made in the survey responses
  • There were 13 emails sent in as responses – none of the points made in these emails were cited or commented upon. In other words, we have absolutely no idea what these 13 emails stated!
  • The claim is that 62% were in favour of council’s proposal and 38% were opposed.

Here are some thoughts to ponder.

The vast majority of responses came (as expected) from dog owners. These participants used the racecourse more than any other cohort of users – ie 85% we’re told. So how are they likely to respond to the question asked – Do you support the proposal to formalise a fenced dog off-leash area in the north-west corner of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve?  Given that there is nothing in the survey to tell participants anything about the site chosen – ie size, distance from water, etc. how many of the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses can be taken at face value as support or opposition to the proposal? Over recent years there have been numerous public questions and requests to council to introduce fenced off leash areas. Council has responded that fencing does not fit in with their ‘open space’ planning.  Thus, how many of the ‘yes’ responses are a result of wanting a fence, but not necessarily what has been put forward?  Is the figure of 62% fully endorsing council’s plan, or simply endorsing the idea of a fenced area but not necessarily what is presented? We can’t tell based on how the question is presented and the lack of accompanying information.

We then get down to the nitty-gritty of the so called ‘Survey Data Analysis’ and this is assessed largely by the section called ‘Free Text Feedback Analysis’..  We are told:

 Of the 325 responses which provided free-text feedback to question two, 185 responses support the proposal and 140 responses do not support the proposal.

The implication of such a sentence is clear – participants support the council proposal!

We then get this breakdown of written responses –

Please remember that the ‘conclusion’ was 140 responses DO NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL!!!!! Is this figure accurate? How is this number arrived at? What criteria was used to interpret the responses? Or were these ‘interpretations’ simply done to ‘confirm’ overall support’ and hence council’s stated position?!!!!!

We have highlighted in orange all those response which might be interpreted as opposed to the proposal – acknowledging that we can only go on the ‘themes’ that council claims came up more than 10 times in the responses. Given that council refuses to publish the comments, as they used to do, we have no idea of what was actually stated by participants!

The highlighted sections represent those responses that we are fairly confident might indicate opposition to the plan. The figures are: 94 + 53 + 22 + 19 + 14 + 13 + 10 + 6 + 5 + 3 = 239. Yet we’re told  that the total number of opposed comments only equals 140!!!!! Tallying up even the first two categories alone (ie 94 +53) gives us a total of 147 and not the 140 cited!!! Subtracting some of the ambiguous ‘themes’ such as ‘dog training’, or ‘Exercise with dog’ still leaves us with numbers well and truly above the claimed 140!!!

The very act of enumerating ‘themes’ is a pointless exercise, as does counting  the number of mentions. Unless the full comments are published we do not have any idea as to what the participants actually prioritised or thought.

There are plenty of other contentious ‘conclusions’ in this summary. Is it simply incompetence on the part of the report’s authors, or is such skewing of results deliberate and orchestrated?

Until we have a set of councillors who actually bother to analyse what is put in front of them, and who have the courage to call out such manipulative practices, then community consultation is Glen Eira will remain a farce.

 

July 21, 2024

The Downward Spiral Continues!

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

There are several items in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting which illustrate the utter cowardice and complicity of the Glen Eira administration with the State government’s ad hoc and appalling planning processes and plans. In addition there is the continued watering down of consultation protocols that further limit transparency and, most importantly, community involvement in decision making.

We will focus on these two separate items.

  1. Proposed Government Planning for the Moorabbin Major Activity Centre

Item 8.3 consists of 4 pages outlining the ‘preliminary/draft’ Moorabbin plans. Two of these pages consist of the maps created by the government. The other two pages are spin and summaries of what the government has stated as its goals. Throughout this verbage there is not one single criticism or even analysis of what is proposed. Instead, we are repeatedly told that:

Council officers are actively involved in these discussions

Council officers will continue to be involved in the briefings with the VPA/DTP and ensure appropriate feedback is provided on the proposed controls and the respective Activity Centre plans. Feedback will align with Council’s priorities and more importantly advocate to be coordinated with funded infrastructure improvements to ensure our communities are not disadvantaged unfairly.

It is anticipated that a significant level of change in these activity centres will be proposed with further changes to be seen in the surrounding catchment areas as depicted in the figures within this report.

Moorabbin Activity Centre planning does not merely impact on Glen Eira. It also includes Bayside and Kingston.

Here is what the Bayside officer report stated on the issue. All quotes come from the 21st May agenda from that council. Please read carefully and ask yourselves which council is really standing up for its residents?

… there are concerns with the manner these projects are being undertaken, and the lack of genuine engagement with the affected councils

The program has been given an un-realistic deadline of implementation of planning controls into the planning scheme by December 2024. Council Officers have had minimal engagement with the project with the following key questions unable to be addressed by the VPA:

• What boundary of the activity centre is being used?

• What are the proposed planning controls to be used?

• What mechanisms for the collection of development contributions will be used to fund infrastructure triggered by the program?

• What technical studies are being undertaken to inform the work?

• How will the community and Council be meaningfully engaged in the process?

Until now, Council officers have had no meaningful engagement with this project, with no information forthcoming in response to any concerns

As this report critically points out, increasing population and development growth in these areas will only exacerbate the need for more infrastructure and community services. Victoria is already witnessing the amounting pressures on our public health system and ambulance services – a result of under resourcing and funding by the State Government. There is real concern that proper planning will not be accounted for as part of these Major Projects and impact the liveability of our current and future residents.

Council fundamentally questions where strategic justification for these targets has arisen from and whether the processes being led for these major projects are consistent with theoutcomes of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the objectives of Planning in Victoria,

Council has previously raised concerns with the SRLA, Victorian Planning Authority and Department Transport and Planning regarding the process, governance and Council’s role within these major projects being led by the State Government. At present, Council has been mostly kept informed and ‘drip fed’ decisions rather than having any real ability to input into these processes and decisions being made.

There are also major concerns regarding the State Government’s agenda to ‘fast-track’ these projects. Proper planning takes time, resources and input at the local scale – this includes both local government and the community. Fast-tracking these major projects only further restricts Council and the community’s input and role in these processes.

Questions

  • Why is it that on the same issue, one council can have an officer report that is highly critical of what is happening and Glen Eira has taken 2 months to come up with a report that basically says nothing and is silent on the processes and impacts of the government proposal? Add this issue to the total deafening silence on the published housing targets of 65,000- net new dwelling by 2051, then this just confirms how little our administration cares about liveability and advocating for residents in Glen Eira.
  • Can we really trust the officers and their stated ‘involvement’ in any discussions? Are councillors informed of what is being discussed? Do they ever see hard copy printouts of discussion points or ‘resolutions’? Or are councillors, as usual, kept in the dark?
  • The real question is – what does council have to gain by being fully complicit with this government? Who is this administration really representing?
  • Community Engagement Strategy

The current Community Engagement Strategy, adopted in 2021, was supposed to run until 2026. So we now have a new strategy 2 years before the current one is set to expire. Why? What’s the rush? What’s the purpose of introducing a new strategy so far ahead of time?

Once the proposed draft is examined, we can achieve some understanding of why this administration is pushing for a new strategy. Put simply, it is to further reduce community input into council decision making.

The key paragraph of the new policy is to be found in these officer comments :

As the updated Policy does not substantively change the intent of the previous Policy, and was co-designed with the Community Engagement Advisory Committee, Council will undertake an ‘Inform’ level community engagement program.

The most important word here is ‘inform’. This is a reference to the IAPP standards of community engagement/consultation where we have ‘inform’, ‘consult’, ‘involve’ and ‘collaborate’ as the steps on the ladder of full and meaningful consultation with the community. ‘Inform’ is the lowest level of consultation. It basically says, ‘here is what we will do and we’re simply telling you about it’. End of story.

When the initial strategy came to light, and included which plans, issues would occasion what sort of consultation, councillors passed the resolution that major issues such as structure plans, important infrastructure, etc. would go well beyond the ‘inform’ or ‘consult’ stage that was initially proposed for all consultations – apart from those  mandated by legislation. Councillor then voted for this resolution:

Since the above resolution was passed we have not had ONE SINGLE ‘involve’ or ‘collaborate’ for any of the structure plans.

But what is even more alarming in the new proposed draft is the complete EXCLUSION of any link between projects and the anticipated level of consultation.  We have no idea which issues will have more than ‘inform’ or ‘consult’ associated with them.

We have written previously on how other councils have designated their intended level of consultation. See: https://gleneira.blog/2021/01/07/consultation-2-2/. With this new draft all we get are motherhood statements, vague promises, and nil detail.

Here is one page from the ‘framework’ document. Please note:

  • ‘Engagement Level’ has now nothing whatsoever to do with how council will consult, much less the level of consultation according to the IAPP standards. It now simply becomes a question of how long the consultation will last!

We then get another page that supposedly outlines the methods of consultation.

Once again we have no idea which projects will involve which levels of consultation. The stated methodology also leaves much to be desired. For example: the community engagement committee is stated as having input into the ‘consult’ and ‘involve’ standards. To the best of our knowledge and according to the minutes of this committee, not once did this committee produce any ‘recommendations’ or even discuss the various draft structure plans. They certainly have had no input whatsoever into the framing, analyses and testing of the atrocious survey questions that are continually produced by this council.

The final outrage is that in the actual draft policy we find this table that is supposed to outline the level of consultation. The very inclusion of a sentence such as ‘Level to be selected depending on the complexity of the matter’ is the loophole that allows this administration to do whatever it likes, when it likes. In other words, because the standard isn’t in black and white, council can neatly side step the need for ‘involve’ and ‘collaborate’. This is both dishonest and devious!!!!!

We have previously shown how other councils specifically itemise the task and the appropriate level of consultation. None of this exists in this new proposal. It represents nothing more than a continued watering down of the fundamentals of sound governance and democratic process. Sadly, it also means that residents, and probably councillors are once again sidelined as much as is legally possible. What a sad state of affairs and what a self serving administration we truly have.

 

June 20, 2024

Silence Once Again!

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

It hasn’t taken long for several of our neighbouring councils to present their views on the latest State Government’s housing target announcement. Glen Eira remains silent – at least in the public domain. God forbid that this council should ever criticise the government and god forbid that it should stand up for its residents.

Here are the responses from Bayside and Boroondara. They are presented in full.

BAYSIDE

Housing target looms large for Bayside

Tuesday 18 June 2024

A 70% increase in housing by 2051 could fundamentally alter the character of Bayside, dramatically compromising liveability.

Bayside City Council is deeply concerned regarding the 70% draft target announced by the Victorian Government.

Bayside Mayor, Councillor Fiona Stitfold said delivering this number of dwellings by 2051 without compromising the much loved, neighbourhood character of Bayside would be very challenging.

“Achieving a target of this magnitude would require dramatic change across Bayside,” Councillor Stitfold said.

“We are alarmed regarding the lack of transparency and are calling for the Victorian Government to provide Council with the evidence and data that has informed the target.”

“Bayside will work cooperatively with the Victorian Government however the process to date has not included effective engagement with either Council or the community. 

“Any engagement on the draft target should also include details on how the Victorian Government will fund additional community facilities, services and infrastructure to accommodate an influx of new residents as this is a key concern of both Council and the community,” Councillor Stitfold said.

Bayside has a strong record of approving housing planning applications with approximately 85% within the state government’s requisite timeframe.

Bayside City Council has previously expressed concerns regarding building heights and density proposed in the Suburban Rail Loop Precinct Key Directions statement which focuses growth in the communities of Highett, Hampton East, Cheltenham and Pennydale in particular.

Achieving a 70% increase to housing would require growth across Bayside as well as in the SRL precinct. This growth would most likely occur along the Sandringham Railway Line which has received no state government investment via Level Crossing Removals. 

“While the increase in the number of dwellings appears to be the simple answer to affordability and supply, the reality is that the current housing market is complex and impacted significantly by the state of the economy, supply chain issues, and State Government Taxation” Councillor Stitfold said.

Have your say on the draft housing target via the Victorian Government engagement website.  Source: https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/news/housing-target-looms-large-bayside

BOROONDARA

State government’s approach to the housing crisis is disappointing and flawed

Tue 18 June 2024

The state government’s approach to the housing crisis is both disappointing and flawed. The need for additional housing is understood but any suggestion that setting housing targets will solve this challenge or even be an effective tool is misleading for several reasons.

First, the housing crisis is the result of poor planning policy by commonwealth and state governments over many years. The cost of government taxes, cost of borrowing for both developers and purchasers, the cost of building materials, shortage of skilled labour due to government projects, cost of living and immigration levels have created this crisis. These are matters for state and commonwealth governments, not local governments. The setting of housing targets does not address any of these fundamental causes.

Secondly, to release housing targets on the scale proposed (a 300% increase on the number of dwellings constructed each year to date in Boroondara) without making any commitment to the infrastructure required to support such exceptional growth is irresponsible planning. Our community has a right to such fundamentals as public open space, adequate drainage and sewage systems, education facilities, health services and transport networks. There is no analysis of this and no corresponding budget allocation over future years from the state. The government must be aware of the need for infrastructure planning given the experience of residents in growth areas, repeated over decades, who continue to have poor access to fundamental services.

Thirdly, housing targets do not produce housing. Developers do that. Councils cannot force developers to make planning applications for new development and councils cannot force developers to build the housing for which they have approval. This is clearly evidenced by the thousands of dwellings which have approval across the state but are not being built.

If the state and commonwealth governments were to accept their roles in planning for adequate housing supply in this country there would be a joint taskforce focused on the macro-economic factors required to stimulate supply and their respective budgets would allocate infrastructure funding required in long term financial plans. This will assist in ensuring quality neighbourhoods and living environments are created for our communities. Community wellbeing and sustainable housing supply should be our focus, not short term politically motivated measures designed to deflect responsibility.

We look forward to a more holistic approach.

Source: https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/your-council/news-and-media/boroondara-news/state-governments-approach-housing-crisis-disappointing-and-flawed

 

June 17, 2024

State Government Madness!

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

Hitting the news over the past few days has been the state government’s release of its preliminary housing targets for each municipality. Glen Eira is being geared to add another 65,000 net new dwellings by 2051 which represents, according to The Age, a 92% increase on current development rates.

Consultation is now open for comment by individuals and organisations. See: https://engage.vic.gov.au/project/shape-our-victoria/page/housing-targets-2051

No one denies the lack of affordable housing, or even housing itself – especially if population growth continues. But to simply decree that what will fix the problem is another 2,000,000 homes by 2051 without any planning for infrastructure, open space, and financial input is in our view sheer madness. Glen Eira has been more than pulling its weight over the past 15 years. To expect a doubling of construction is not planning – it is a recipe for destroying neighbourhoods and liveability – even if this target is possible given the rise in construction costs, labour shortages, and developers’ goal of ever increasing profit.

How on earth these numbers were derived is anyone’s guess. The government website simply justifies the data with the following:

The above ‘criteria’ raise a number of questions:

  • Glen Eira has 9 railway stations in 38.7Km of land. Add to this 6 Major Activity Centres/Comprehensive Development Zones, and about 11 neighbourhood centres that total a good proportion of available land then we can expect most of Glen Eira to be ‘built out’.  When Glen Eira is compared to its neighbours and their targets we are certainly being overdeveloped. For example here are the targets for councils lumped together in the government map (highlighted as green) together with their size in square km –

Hobson’s Bay – 31,000 – 64km

Maribyrnong – 46,000 – 31.2 km

Moonee Valley – 57,000 – 43 km

Merri-bek – 72,000 – 51 km

Darebin – 72,000 – 54km

Banyule – 47,000 – 63km

Booroondara – 67,000 – 60 km

Manningham – 39,000 – 113 km

Whitehorse – 79,000 – 64 kn

Monash – 72,000 – 82km

Bayside – 31,000 – 37 km

Kingston – 59,000 – 91 km

As this shows, apart from Maribyrnong, Glen Eira is far smaller than all other council areas. Add to this the lack of open space, tree canopy loss, and wide areas subject to flood, then we are indeed in deep shit if this proposal is ever to eventuate.

Not a single word refers to population DENSITY and what the repercussions of living with increased density will mean in terms of traffic congestion, lack of open space, urban heat, overshadowing, etc. The basic question of what is an ‘acceptable’ number of people living in each square km is never addressed – and this assumes that infrastructure has been built, that jobs are available, schools nearby, roads accessible, and public transport vastly improved.

The question should be whether Glen Eira has already achieved saturation point. Below we present profile.id data that shows population density as of 2023 in our suburbs. What will this be in 2051 when we add another 65,000 dwellings?

DENSITY PER SUBURB

BENTLEIGH – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Bentleigh is 19,360, with a population density of 4,025 persons per square km.

BENTLEIGH EAST – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Bentleigh East is 31,214, with a population density of 3,476 persons per square km.

CARNEGIE – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Carnegie is 19,412, with a population density of 5,266 persons per square km.

CAULFIELD – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Caulfield is 5,905, with a population density of 4,009 persons per square km.

CAULFIELD NORTH – CAULFIELD EAST – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Caulfield North – Caulfield East is 19,452, with a population density of 3,566 persons per square km.

CAULFIELD SOUTH – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Caulfield South is 12,748, with a population density of 3,897 persons per square km.

ELSTERNWICK-GARDENVALE – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Elsternwick – Gardenvale is 12,455, with a population density of 4,354 persons per square km.

GLEN HUNTLY – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Glen Huntly is 5,202, with a population density of 5,824 persons per square km.

MCKINNON – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for McKinnon is 7,205, with a population density of 4,536 persons per square km.

MURRUMBEENA – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Murrumbeena is 10,449, with a population density of 3,976 persons per square km.

ORMOND – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Ormond is 8,956, with a population density of 4,323 persons per square km.

ST KILDA East  – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for St Kilda East is 4,480, with a population density of 4,686 persons per square km.

TOTAL GLEN EIRA – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for the City of Glen Eira is 156,837, with a population density of 4,056 persons per square km.

Source: https://profile.id.com.au/glen-eira/about?WebID=10

Now is the time to provide your input into this government ‘plan’ if you don’t want to see your neighbourhoods completely destroyed. See the above link and please respond. And wouldn’t it be good if for once our council came out with some formal opposition to such planning?

 

May 8, 2024

Our Rights Being Reduced!

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

Glen Eira clearly makes up its own rules as it goes along, regardless of whether or not these rules are in accordance with its adopted policies and governance rules and which are still current. Recent meetings provide us with conclusive evidence of these machinations.  We refer to public participation and written questions to council.

Public Participation

Out of nowhere we are now being informed that residents in the public participation section of a council meeting have only 3 minutes in which to address council. Also, that the time allotted will be no longer than 15 minutes. Why? When was this decision made? And by whom? Most importantly, this new ‘law/policy’ is NOT IN ACCORD with the existing (2020) policy that clearly states at clause B(15) –

Members of the public addressing the Ordinary council Meeting are permitted to speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes (unless granted an extension of time by the Chairperson)

At last week’s council meeting one resident politely asked if he could have a 15 second extension. This was refused by Cade. Please listen carefully to this audio –

Neither the current guidelines nor the Local Law state the duration of public participation or the public question sections. Yet throughout most of this year we are told that they will last 15 minutes only. It’s important to note that the so called ‘guidelines’ which determine procedures have NOT BEEN AMENDED at the time of writing.

Public Questions

When compared to other councils we again fall short. Here’s what they do:

Monash – Public question time is limited to 30 minutes, unless otherwise resolved by Council.

Darebin – Public Question Time will not exceed 30 minutes in duration unless extended by resolution of Council through a procedural motion, in which case, it may only be extended for one (1) period of up to 30 minutes.

Merribek – The time provided for questions of Council and community statements will not exceed 30 minutes in duration, unless by resolution of Council, in which case, the time may be extended for one period of up to 30 minutes.

Boroondara – The time allocation of 15 minutes may be extended by resolution of Council.

Hobson’s Bay – Twenty minutes will be allocated in the agenda for Public Question Time. However, the Chairperson may vary the time allocated depending on the business to be considered at the meeting. No resolution of Council is required to extend Public Question Time.

Maribyrnong – Public question time will not exceed 15 minutes in duration unless the Councillors present unanimously agree to the time extension, in which case Public Question Time can be extended for further blocks of 15 minutes.

We certainly accept that when a contentious issue arises, there may be numerous residents who wish to address council meetings or submit a public question. Given the length of some agendas, it may therefore not be possible to allow everyone to speak or to answer all the public questions. But we would also argue, that if an issue is so contentious and/or divisive, that it has caused a massive public response, then the onus is on council to provide as much time as possible for councillors to listen to their constituents. Councillors must be provided with the right to extend both public participation times and public question times. Otherwise the perception remains that all council is doing is attempting to limit as much as possible resident voices.

All of the above is important because the draft governance rules and the associated policies are now out for public consultation. They basically seek to legally cement what has been happening this year, and hence are unacceptable.

Unlike other councils, Glen Eira’s governance rules in regard to public participation and public questions are basically bereft of important detail. What becomes the ruling factor are the so called ‘policies’. Whilst neighbouring councils itemise all aspects and procedures, Glen Eira relies primarily on the policies. Why? We believe that this action is designed to side-step the need for public consultation which a formal amendment requires as part of Local Law procedures. It also allows council to tinker repeatedly with these policies as they see fit. This is not sound governance and certainly not in the public interest.

The latest drafts for public participation and for public questions specify a 15 minute time limit. They do not provide any time duration for a resident addressing council in the public participation format. Everything is left open to the ‘discretion’ of the Chairperson (ie mayor). Nor are we told whether residents must be present in chamber for their question to be read out and answered as stipulated in the 2020 changes.

These above points are important because council has always operated on the principle that if it isn’t in the ‘rules’ then we don’t have to do it! Or conversely, because it isn’t in the rules, we can do it! One should expect that something as important as governance rules be spelt out to the nth degree. Not only do these new proposed rules represent a deterioration in governance at Glen Eira, they also further sideline councillors and residents.   

 

May 1, 2024

Snowed Under!

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

We have to question what is really happening with consultation in Glen Eira. Residents and councillors are literally snowed under with a plethora of current consultations. After tonight’s council meeting there will be seven issues that are currently open for input/submissions. Very soon, another 2 important planning items will be added – the Bentleigh and Elsternwick structure plans.

Questions abound! Why so many, why now, and how vital are they all at this point in time? And most importantly, what impact does a deluge of consultations have on community feedback and on councillors themselves? Was it really necessary that we now have a consultation on gambling, or even the economic plan? Considering that the budget will be discussed tonight, then surely this should precede an ‘economic plan’ so that the budget would set the parameters.

It is asking a lot for residents to partake in any meaningful manner on these consultations. Admittedly, not every issue will be of concern to all residents. Some may be interested in the annual budget, and not in gambling policy. People will pick and choose and decide if they have the time and energy to provide feedback. Glen Eira will of course continue the rhetoric that it cares about consultation and consults regularly. Over the years however, feedback on many of these consultations have been extremely poor – apart from the really contentious issues such as the Inkerman bike path, or the Queen’s Avenue cycling path. Yet, council has never really investigated why there has been a low feedback rate, and nor have they come up with any answers.

If there is simply apathy, then it is incumbent on council to explore why. Could it possibly be that once bitten twice shy?  When people have taken the time to provide feedback and then discover that nothing they have said has been responded to or even listed in summary reports they give up and believe that council simply doesn’t listen or act upon their suggestions? This would be enough to put anyone off from trying again! A truly responsive council is one that monitors and investigates the results of all its consultations. We don’t believe this is happening in Glen Eira!

 We have long advocated for the following to occur:

  • A short succinct summary of proposals that don’t require residents to plough through hundreds of pages (mostly of spin) prior to submitting their feedback
  • Surveys that are deliberately open ended instead of question upon question that is geared to garner the required response.
  • The involvement of councillors and the consultation committee in vetting questions and processes prior to consultation

In the next month or so residents and councillors will be confronted with up to 9 consultations occurring simultaneously. That is nothing but a recipe for disaster! But is this what council really wants?

 

April 12, 2024

What A Stuff Up!

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

March 23, 2024

Heritage: Bayside Versus Glen Eira

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
1 Comment 

Bayside council completed a Panel Hearing during February 2024 for its heritage proposed amendment C192.  The report is not yet available. What is significant in this council’s approach to preserving heritage when compared to Glen Eira is the insistence on the ‘value’ of heritage to the entire community.  The Glen Eira approach has simply stated that because council has identified certain areas as suitable for ‘housing growth’ heritage can be overlooked!

Bayside council’s submission to the recent planning panel is fascinating when seen in the light of Glen Eira’s approach.  Our council tells us repeatedly that there could be serious ‘social’ and ‘economic’ drawbacks if certain sites are allowed to remain in the existing heritage overlays. They can therefore be removed. Bayside counters such views with the following extracts from its formal submission. We’ve uploaded several sections from this document.  Please note the differences in approach and what this means for heritage preservation.

 

March 20, 2024

Heritage Versus Development!

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

Despite persistent claims from councillors and this administration that preserving heritage is vitally important, last night’s council meeting provided conclusive proof that in the choice between facilitating development or preserving heritage listed sites, heritage would always lose.  

The issue surfaced with the proposed amendment to the Elsternwick heritage study which is now seeking ministerial approval for advertising. Repeated time and time again throughout the various attachments we find the following (verbatim) paragraph:

Including these sites within a Heritage Overlay would negatively impact on potential future housing growth within locations that Council has resolved to allocate to housing growth. This inconsistency has social and economic implications. When balancing Council’s adopted strategy for housing growth opportunities in these locations with heritage protection, it is considered that in these two instances, housing growth should prevail.

We note that there is no explanation of what these ‘social and economic implications’ are, nor how they are assessed and verified. Surely the preservation of heritage buildings has its own wider,  ‘social’ benefits?

All of this stems back to 2019 when council attempted to have amendment C203 accepted. The Minister or department decided at that time that not all the nominated precincts be included because this would impede development. A department letter to council stated:

“At this stage it is not considered appropriate to apply the Heritage Overlay more extensively in Elsternwick given that Council is yet to seek authorisation for a planning scheme amendment to implement the Elsternwick Structure Plan. Doing so could, by default, lead to heritage controls becoming the primary driver for development outcomes within the Elsternwick Activity Centre.

Council’s response? Not a whimper! No public questioning of the legality and common sense in 2019 and not again in 2024. Council meekly accepted the decision and has now enshrined this in the latest amendment attempt. The result is the continued loss of heritage buildings in Glen Eira, and particularly in Elsternwick.

When Amendment C203 finally went to a planning panel, the members were not averse to stating clearly their disapproval of the imposed conditions. We have uploaded two pages from the panel report at the conclusion of this post. Their conclusions questioned the legality and evidence for the exclusion of the nominated precincts. They found that the amendment:

1. Is counter to Planning Practice Notes 1, 58 and 60 and that

2. Development potential is not a valid criterion when considering heritage potential.

3. Development potential is NOT prioritised above any other criteria in the planning provisions

4. No valid justification has been provided for the exclusion of the precincts

5. Contravenes Plan Melbourne where heritage is said to be ‘fundamental’ (Clause 4.4.3) to the state’s cultural identity.

Last night’s officer’s report  confirms what an absolute shambles planning, and particularly heritage has been in Glen Eira. The latest amendment is simply trying to largely rectify the indifference and errors of the past when countless streets containing confirmed heritage overlays were rezoned as Residential Growth Zones (RGA and 4 storeys) when they should not have been! Here’s what the latest heritage report states:

The application of the RGZ in these almost exclusively residential Heritage Overlay areas is contrary to the guidance of PPN91 (Planning Practice Note 91 – Using the Residential Zones), which identifies that there will be difficulty in reconciling the conflicting objectives of substantial housing change (through the application of the RGZ) and the conservation of existing buildings (by applying the Heritage Overlay).

In other words, the introduction of the residential zones in 2013 was a disaster for heritage. Many sites in these heritage overlays have now been demolished and replaced with 4 storey apartment blocks as a result. We remind readers that we are yet to see a full and decent review of this zoning!!!!!

Our argument is simple. If something is determined to be worthy of heritage listing then it MUST take precedence over development potential. Council chooses the alternative – development always comes first!

The vote last night was 7 to 2. The opposing councillors were Esakoff and Parasol and NOT because they were against the removal of so many heritage sites, but because they wanted one nominated dwelling removed from being included in the overlay, even though it is surrounded by heritage cited properties! So much for giving a damn about heritage in Glen Eira!!!!!

Here’s the Planning Panel report comments –

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »