GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

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 –

 

February 25, 2024

Tree Protection: The Need For Full Transparency

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

Council is proposing a new Local Law designed to protect not only SIGNIFICANT trees, but also canopy trees on private property which qualify under height and width criteria. This is certainly an improvement and should protect more existing trees. However, how many existing canopy trees will actually be covered by the proposal(s) depends to a large extent on how well the upcoming Local Law is written and what is its true intent. What also needs to be considered is to what extent all decisions will be fully transparent and who will make these decisions. Will it be left entirely in the hands of officers, or will councillors have the final say as in numerous other councils on which permit applications are granted or refused?

The officer’s report includes the following paragraphs on this last point:

The above is very ambiguous. We are told that officers will presumably undertake the initial assessment when there has been a permit application, and this is fair enough. The final paragraph however clearly states that there will be an ‘internal review process’ but only for those applicants who have requested a review. Thus, if a permit has been granted, then there is no need for a review! Officer’s will have made the decision and that’s the end of it with no councillor involvement, or no objection rights by anyone it would seem.

The paragraph continues that a report will be prepared but this is dependent on whether or not the applicant has chosen to seek a review as stated previously. What remains unclear is whether the officer report will also cover applications that have been granted a permit ‘internally’ and whether the tabled report is there simply for ‘noting’ or for councillors to make actual decisions? Even with the existing significant Tree register local law, councillors are sidelined and all decisions are made by officers. There is therefore no transparency and no accountability for decision making. We suspect that the proposed new law will be the same. Surely the onus on council is to clear up any ambiguity  and to ensure residents that trees will be fully protected.

There are other issues with the proposals as well. Here is our take on these:

Clause 2(b)of the proposed Local Law states that a permit is required to prune or direct, authorise or allow to be pruned a Classified Tree or a Canopy. But we then get the ‘exemption’ that this clause does not apply if Council is notified within five (5) working days of the commencement of the pruning.

 This may sound quite innocuous, but it has major repercussions. Why the 5 days grace? Most pruning would be concluded well within 5 days. If an applicant then calls council and says ‘I’ve pruned my tree’ what evidence exists that the pruning was in accordance with the 10% maximum reduction of canopy allowed? What evidence do we have that the branches were less than 10cm in width?

Bayside, by contrast, has processes that would ensure the pruning is done legally. They insist on:

  • Photos taken BEFORE and AFTER
  • That the work be done by a qualified arborist
  • That the arborist has to sign off by certifying the work done.

NONE of the above applies in Glen Eira!!! This leaves a huge loop hole that can easily be taken advantage of.

Compounding the problem we then get this additional clause regarding pruning:

Subclause (2)(b) does not apply to pruning, which is carried out to the following specifications—

(a) up to a maximum of 10% of the Classified Tree’s or Canopy Tree’s total volume within 12 calendar Months

We assume that this means there can be numerous episodes of lopping throughout a 12 month period. But given that no permit is required we again lack evidence that only 10% has been lopped? Nor are we told whether or not each lopping requires council to be notified – even within the 5 day period.

One other change to the current Local Law is also worth commenting upon. Please read the following carefully:

Questions abound. Consider this scenario – No permit has been applied for. A neighbour complains to council  that a large canopy tree is being removed next door. According to the current Local Law, the property could be entered by a council officer and inspected. With the proposed new law, this could only happen if the owner of the tree has ALREADY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. If he/she hasn’t, then they the new law does not provide them with the power to investigate and potentially call a halt to the tree removal!

CONCLUSION

Whilst these proposed changes are definitely an improvement and an attempt to protect our existing canopy trees, they simply do not go far enough. We fully accept that there may be situations where a tree presents a major health risk due to storms, etc and should be lopped/removed in the name of safety. But, there are far too many loopholes in the proposed new law that can be exploited. All that is required is that clauses such as Bayside and other councils have is included and that the essential role of monitoring evaluations occurs by councillors. What role councillors will play needs to be spelt out clearly. This has not been done.

Leaving everything in the hands of officers does not engender full transparency and accountability in decision making. Bayside for example also publishes on a regular basis a list of permits granted for the removal of trees. There is nothing in this proposed law which will ensure that decisions on whether to refuse or grant a permit will ultimately be made in the full council chamber so that all residents can see and listen to the evidence.

ONE FINAL POINT. All of the above of course is dependent on whether a planning permit for the site has been granted. The permit could and often does include permission to remove existing trees. Given that planning permits are largely decided by officers and that at least 15 objections are required before the application can go to council, this again places enormous power in the hands of officers.

 

February 4, 2024

Landsdcaping & The Housing Strategy

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

Tuesday’s council agenda features the latest version of the Housing Strategy. Readers will remember that there was a huge outcry surrounding the proposal that all GRZ sites would have the mandatory garden requirement removed. On a positive note, this idea has now been abandoned!!!!!

Readers should also remember the persistent claims that council is fully committed to improving landscaping, increasing tree canopy across all of Glen Eira, and implementing the Urban Forest Strategy. The claim then was that with the removal of the mandatory garden requirement this would ensure better landscaping opportunities. So what has council done now to ensure that our tree canopy increases and all principles behind climate change and the growth of the Urban Forest is well on track?

Included below are the pages from the agenda (p144-145) which outline all the new landscaping proposals. The writing in red (and crossed out) shows what is currently in the planning scheme and the green notations are the new recommendations.

Please notice the following:

  • The stated objective on page 144 is to: To strengthen landscape character across Glen Eira. If this is the case, then why are we told that apartments are ‘excluded’!!!!!! Surely apartments, and all GRZ and RGZ areas which would feature apartments are equally part of Glen Eira and deserve some decent landscaping?
  • Gone entirely is the following from the planning scheme: The provision of a minimum of one 8 metre high canopy tree for every 8 metres of the front boundary. There is also the requirement for canopy trees in rear setbacks as stated with the following: The provision of a minimum of one 6 metre high canopy tree for every 8 metres of rear boundary in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the General Residential Zone. However, the resulting new schedules to the NRZ and GRZ zoning completely alter the above standards. All that we now get are these miniscule requirements –

FOR SOME SITES ZONED NRZ the schedules state:

Retain or provide canopy cover equivalent to at least 22 per cent of the site area, including at least one medium canopy tree within the front setback with a minimum mature height equal to the height of the roof OR THE EVEN WORSE ‘STANDARD’ OF – In addition to the requirements of B13, retain or provide at least one medium canopy tree within the front setback.

 FOR THE GRZ AND RGZ ZONING ALL WE GET IS – In addition to the requirements of B13, retain or provide at least one canopy tree within the front setback

Please note that NO MENTION IS MADE OF REAR GARDEN REQUIREMENTS!!!!! Furthermore,  given the reduction of both front, and rear setbacks in some of the proposed schedules, the end result can only be a further deterioration of our tree canopy and the sabotage of all council climate change policies.

Instead of using this opportunity to increase permeability in the GRZ, or at least maintain RESCODE street setbacks, council has forgotten all its promises, its policies, and its commitment to genuine climate change strategies. In short, this new version of the Housing Strategy, is nothing more than a return to the future in that single zoning and their schedules cover all GRZ and RGZ zones whilst others in the NRZ have increased site coverage, and a reduction in their current permeability requirements. In short, we are going backwards in order to cram as many new dwellings into Glen Eira as possible, and regardless of whether or not we need this development!

 

January 31, 2024

Why Genuine Consultation Is Dead In Glen Eira!

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

Over the past few years more and more residents are feeling aggrieved at the bogus consultation methodologies that this council trots out. Here is a summary of what is wrong with the entire process –

  • Survey questions are designed to elicit the required response. They are either totally irrelevant to the core issue or are simply vague and nothing more than motherhood statements. We are not told who designs these questions but more importantly whether they are first road tested with councillors and the community consultation committee. The latter group remains nothing but a public relations enterprise given that they have no real input into design or decision making of surveys or issues.
  • Public forums are also carefully manipulated and engineered. Half of the time officers present their  (positive) take on an issue and little time is left for resident queries and comments. Secondly the chat function is often turned off so that participants can’t communicate with each other and again recordings of the forums seldom are available to review. The latest forum on the Queen’s Avenue trees is the perfect example with council stating that they can’t release the video because of LXRP ‘requirements’ and conversely the LXRP stating that it is council’s forum and hence up to their discretion.
  • Consultation summaries are anything but accurate representations of what was stated. Often residents have to be satisfied with a sprinkling of what participants said instead of being able to read in full everything that everyone stated. FOI requests are met with sheer nonsense such as releasing all commentary would be an impingement on council resources and take time away from their other business. When the survey responses are anonymous and collected in a single file the excuse of a drain on council resources is sheer bunkum!
  • Often residents find themselves having to plough through hundreds upon hundreds of pages in order to get to the crux of the matter. Council refuses to provide short summaries of the major issues so that residents can know exactly what is at stake.
  • Meetings with officers are generally a waste of time. They trot out all the positives but neglect any negatives. Furthermore the times set aside for such activities are mostly during the day – hardly suitable for people who work, or have small children.

So how can all this be fixed? Here are some suggestions that we’ve made in the past –

  • Ensure that survey questions are reviewed by both councillors and the community consultation committee before anything goes public. Avoid generalities, closed questions, motherhood statements. Provide a short, succinct summary that addresses all the pros and cons of the matter. For major issues a Discussion paper is vital.
  • Given that council was quite prepared to release all commentary on its consultations several years ago, the current approach on the most contentious issues such as structure planning and the housing strategy, has been to cover up and hide as much of the negative feedback as possible. This has to change. All comments, emails (redacted to protect privacy) must be available.
  • Major consultations remain at the ‘consult’ level. According to the IAP2 we should surely be at the very least at the ‘involve’ level. Councillors have the power to ensure this occurs.
  • Forums either public or Zoom must include the chat facility so that participants can interact. Secondly the full version must be available for those who missed out. The focus should always be on resident feedback and NOT officer reports.
  • Finally, it is imperative that before residents are asked for their views, all information is provided to them. We have had councillors complaining that they don’t get to see some documentation prior to their voting, or that not sufficient time has been provided for them to digest the data. Residents also need to have all the facts before they commit to providing responses.

All of this is important if the community is to have any faith and confidence in this council. Refusing to implement genuine consultation only serves to foster suspicion and shows how the essential priority of transparency is moribund in Glen Eira.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »