Glen Eira Debates

A couple of basic questions to start with:

• How much does it cost ratepayers to defend the indefensible at VCAT?
• How ‘competent’ are our planning staff, or
• Are we witnessing the expansion of council’s agenda that is designed to reinforce the image of VCAT as the awful ‘villain’?

For the past year or so, council via ‘manager’ has refused an extraordinary number of planning applications for 2 double storeys in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. These applications then invariably head off to VCAT and we estimate that over 90% are granted their permit and council’s refusal is set aside.

Here is a sample and the full summary for the past year is uploaded HERE

The applications in this image are all well and truly over 600 square metres and one is over 700 square metres. Surely, any ‘transgressions’ could have been remedied via thoughtful conditions rather than incurring the costs of going to VCAT  for both the developer and council.

What is literally staggering is the quality of the council arguments that then occurs at VCAT. A recent VCAT decision must surely take the cake for the most inept and farcical attempt to defend council’s refusal. We quote:

• The responsible authority’s key concern focused on the rear of the site and what it considers to be an open backyard character of the area. In particular, it was concerned that the rear setback of the first floor of the proposed dwelling 1 would be closer to the rear boundary of the subject land than the rear setback of the older dwelling at number no.16 Molden Street. It submitted that the rear setback of the first floor of the proposal should not extend deeper into the review site than the rear setback of the existing dwelling at no.16 Molden Street.
• We do not agree with the responsible authority that it is appropriate the prevailing setback to the rear boundary of a dwelling built some seven decades ago should prescribe the rear setback of one or two new contemporary dwellings. Simply ruling a line across the subject land aligned with the setback of the existing older dwelling on no.16 Molden Street does not comprise site and context responsive design. It is a very blunt tool to use to determine whether a proposal is respectful of the existing character of the area. More importantly such an approach has no basis in the scheme.

So the questions remain:

• Why are so many applications in NRZ being refused? Surely they can’t all be that poor? and especially when they meet all the NRZ schedule requirements for site coverage, height, permeability, setbacks as the one cited above has done?
• Why is council content to waste its planners’ time and effort in defending the indefensible?
• How much is this costing ratepayers – especially in an era of supposed cost cutting and pressures on councils to be far more frugal and proficient in what they do?
• We suggest that instead of spending tens of thousands on such cases, that council should employ far more competent planning staff to deal with the current planning chaos that is Glen Eira!

PS: in order to provide a little more context to the above we add the following – a list of all published VCAT outcomes from January 2016 to the present day. All decisions involved 2 double storey applications in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Council’s record as revealed below is literally appalling with only one ‘refusal’ upheld and only several ‘varied’ – ie council’s conditions chucked out. More applications are awaiting decision.

8 Bokhara Road, Caufield South – set aside

45 Mortimore Street, Bentleigh – affirmed

285 Alma Road, Caulfield North – set aside

20 Cushing Avenue, Bentleigh – varied

40 Fromer Street, Bentleigh – set aside

19 Thomasina Street, Bentleigh East – set aside

12 Anarth Street, Bentleigh East – set aside

20 Begg Street, Bentleigh East – varied

1 Heatherbrae Avenue, Caulfield – set aside

6 Glenmer Street, Bentleigh – set aside

309 East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East – set aside

6 Burreel Avenue, Elsternwick – set aside

3 Malcolm Street, McKinnon – set aside

1 Jane Street, Bentleigh East – set aside

633 Warrigal Road, Bentleigh East – set aside

7 East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East – set aside

1A Osborne Avenue, Bentleigh – varied

8 Murrong Avenue, Bentleigh – varied

34 Omar Street Caulfield South – set aside

25 Coates Street, Bentleigh – varied

2 Draper Street, McKinnon – set aside

5 Lord Street, McKinnon – varied

3 and 4 Beatty Crescent, Bentleigh – set aside

18 Richard Street, Bentleigh East – set aside

30 McArthur Street, Bentleigh – set aside

The following image comes from the Progress Leader of the 9th May, 2017. It raises innumerable questions as to whether what we are currently witnessing throughout Victoria and in local councils is truly good strategic planning, or straight out political machinations.

Here’s our take on recent events:

• Wynne’s intervention in Yarra in slicing a proposal down to 10 storeys? It’s his seat and the Greens are on the march
• Staikos is vulnerable – holding the seat by the skin of his teeth
• Dimopolous in ‘danger’ also following the outcry against Skyrail and lack of consultation (now confirmed by the Auditor General in his latest reports)
• Boroondara – strongly Liberal

Thus we get politspeak in spades from the department and the Minister’s office. Please note the comments on Glen Eira carefully!

Council has indeed perfected the art of camouflage in its production of the annual budget. Broad categories that are not defined become the perfect tool for obfuscation and lack of accountability. Figures, prognostications, and actual business plans seem to be nothing more than works of fiction. A few examples should suffice.

Readers will remember the fuss that Delahunty initially made in regards to the GESAC Wellness Centre – that it was lacking in ‘social responsibility’ and had the potential to damage local businesses. The image below comes from the minutes that gave the go ahead for the completion of this facility. Please note the figures –

Now, less than a year later we find on page 223 of the draft budget – The Wellness Centre is expected to generate income of $434k and incur costs of $405k for 2017-18.

How on earth can the ‘cost calculation’ skyrocket to this extent in less than a year? And what happened to the $120,000 profit once operational?

There are other issues with this centre too. The 2016/17 budget allocated $250,000 for ‘completion’ of the centre. Yet on the 21st March Council Meeting the following tender for the Wellness Centre was included for the in camera discussions –

That Council:

1. appoints Ducon Maintenance Pty Ltd, ACN 150 941 174 as the contractor under Tender number 2017.013 for an amount of $499,273.00 exclusive of GST.
   

GST would add approximately another $50,000 hence we are looking at well over $500,000 before the first penny comes in. In other words, the centre will not be running at a profit – it will be running at a loss once all the figures are added up!

Other figures for GESAC are also questionable. For instance the current draft budget provides us with these statements-

Addition of fans/chiller to the stadium, outside gym area on the first floor outside the group fitness area and replacement of pool equipment – $210,000 (page 90)

Then a few pages later we have the identical ‘explanation’ but the cost suddenly becomes $40,000 less!

Addition of fans/chiller to the stadium, outside gym area on the first floor outside the group fitness area and replacement of pool equipment – $170,000 (page 93)

One and one never seems to add up to two in Glen Eira! Statements and figures should be crystal clear to even primary school children – unless of course the objective is to camouflage the truth!