May 11, 2017
The Auditor General yesterday released his report on consultation practices in local government. Glen Eira was not audited for this report. However, the comments would still be relevant – particularly in regard to the processes for determining budgets and council plans. The full report is available from – http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/latest_reports/2016-17/20170510-pp-local-gov.aspx
Here are a couple of screen dumps that readers might like to consider –
May 9, 2017
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:
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!
April 28, 2017
A short post alerting residents to the fact that council has published its draft budget, community plan and also included plenty of planning applications in the current agenda – a massive 555 pages!
We will report on the first two in much greater detail once we have had the time to fully digest the documents. What follows are simply some overall first impressions:
On other matters –
Watch this space!
April 24, 2017
The so-called ‘Tranformative Concepts’ for dealing with the issue of parking to in our activity centres basically proposes
One Mile Grid was then commissioned to survey ‘traffic’ flow in various streets. Their brief is defined as
Without stating the obvious, traffic flow and parking should be two distinct areas. It appears that council is determined to conflate both issues in the attempt to provide support for its highly questionable recommendations! Not surprisingly, the results of the One Mile Grid analysis for Elsternwick, Carnegie, Bentleigh concluded that – The results show that all intersections analysed are currently operating under ‘excellent’ conditions during both the morning and afternoon peak hours with minimal queues and delays experienced by motorists. Only Orrong Road brought up a ‘good’ condition report rather than ‘excellent’. Many residents travelling along these roads/streets would beg to differ!
We are not traffic engineers. We are simply residents attempting to understand how such results can lead to the recommendations when:
If council is indeed sincere about providing adequate car parking in its activity centres, then one must expect far more than a highly suspect report that does nothing more than focus on ‘traffic flow’ at certain intersections and concludes that all is hunky dorey for the most part and that public land can be flogged off for more private development.
By way of contrast we urge all residents to read the following that comes from Moonee Valley council’s amendment seeking to introduce both a parking overlay for the Moonee Ponds Activity Centre and a developer contribution of up to $13,000 per each car parking waiver. Then ask yourselves would Glen Eira ever attempt something like this given its pro-development agenda? We’ve uploaded the Moonee Valley traffic analysis, (a 175 page document) HERE
April 20, 2017
The latest outrage in development applications concerns 9-13 Derby Road, Caulfield East. Advertising has now finished for an application that proposes:
The fact that this has not been refused outright at manager level is astounding given that various other applications of the recent past have not been advertised at all. Recent manager refusals include the Development Plan for Precinct 2 of Caulfield Village (400+ units); 8 storeys in Hawthorn Road; 7 storeys in Neerim Road and another 8 storeys in Rosstown Road. Yet this one gets through unscathed! Why? We can only surmise that this is because of the state of the current planning scheme and the wheeling and dealing that is going on between Monash, the VPA, Council, State Government, and other vested interests in the Phoenix Precinct area.
To rub further salt into the wounds the planners can’t even proof read properly, or don’t even know where the site is located – ie Hawthorn East! Because the area is zoned Commercial 1 it is therefore okay to have zero permeability and 95% site coverage on a 540 square metre block.
Finally, here is what it purports to look like –
April 18, 2017
A huge gulf exists between resident responses to the ‘surveys’ on ‘transforming’ our activity centres, and what is portrayed as the ‘results’ of this ‘consultation’. The McKinnon report is another example of a work of fiction that fails to accurately represent what residents said – especially in the category of ‘private development’. Here is the pie chart claiming to depict the results –
Please note the following:
Please read the following comments and judge for yourselves as to the validity, honesty, and accuracy of this ‘consultation’ report.
April 7, 2017
The current agenda features 3 items of particular interest. Two involve planning applications and the third is an officer’s response to a request for data on car parking waivers as a potential tool to use at VCAT. What is presented in each of these reports we find staggering and wonder what on earth is going on with planning in this council.
As per usual, the report concludes that – It is considered that the extensive resources required to collate car parking waiver data could be more effectively directed towards creating the strategic basis for future car parking provisions. By doing so, much needed clarity can be provided to the town planning process in Glen Eira with subsequent benefits in defending VCAT appeals.
Backing up the ‘do nothing approach’ we get – A comprehensive audit of past planning decisions to obtain car parking waiver data would be a resource intensive exercise.
The ultimate recommendation therefore reads – That Council acknowledges this report and the strategic work that is underway which will ultimately lead to clearer and more effective planning provisions around car parking.
We also urge readers to note the following paragraph – In terms of specific controls,Council’s adopted Planning Scheme Review Workplan is committed to investigating the use of Car Parking Overlays and Parking Precinct Plans. These controls can provide greater clarity for decision makers, the community, and permit applicants through location specific car parking rates or developer contributions.
COMMENT
The Planning Applications
Below are two screen dumps that show the zoning for the applications. One in North Road, Ormond (5 storeys, 4 units) and one in Jasper Road, McKinnon (4 storeys, 4 units). Worth noting that council hasn’t used zoning maps, but instead included aerial shots which (perhaps intentionally) do not show up the planning contexts of these sites. Before proceeding further, readers might like to hazard a guess as to which application was refused and which was granted a permit?
The officer’s recommendation was refusal. Yet scattered throughout the report we find the following:
Thus on all the major ‘criteria’ this proposal meets the requirements. The refusal boils down to laneway access and car stackers and that the plans have not ‘satisfactorily demonstrated’ that access and layout provide a ‘safe environment for users’. So we now have the situation where an application for 5 storeys in a Mixed Use Zone and surrounded by GRZ, and other commercial sites that are already 5 storeys is refused on grounds that we doubt will stand up at VCAT. Besides, council already thinks that 8 storeys is appropriate for the Ormond Tower!
This application gets the nod of approval – despite the fact that it directly abuts a Neighbourhood Residential Zone; no onsite parking is proposed for the food outlet, and no visitor car parking for the 4 units (ie the magical number is 5!). We then get these extraordinary components –
CONCLUSIONS?
Finally, just to add salt to the wounds, the hole in the ground opposite the Jasper road application was originally granted a permit for 4 storeys in 2014 by council. The land and permit were then on-sold and we now have another application for –
The construction of a five storey, mixed use building above basement car park (comprising a food and drink premises and 45 dwellings); a reduction of car parking requirements; waiver of loading bay requirements; alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1; construction of buildings and works within a Special Building Overlay
What does this all this say about council considering ‘cumulative impact’ on street car parking spaces and on the overall approach to providing transparent and credible officer reports?
April 1, 2017
Booran Reserve playground in Glen Huntly could be best in Melbourne
Bianca Carmona, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader
April 1, 2017 12:00am
A CHILD’S smile might be priceless to most, but it comes with a hefty price tag of almost $11 million in Glen Eira.
The council has spent $10.8 million creating what could be Melbourne’s most expensive playground at Glen Huntly’s Booran Reserve.
It is almost twice the cost of the Royal Park Nature Play Playground next to the Royal Children’s Hospital, which opened two years ago and is considered one of Melbourne’s best.
By comparison, neighbouring Bayside Council has approved funding of almost the same amount ($10.48 million) to improve more than 60 play areas over the next 10 years.Booran Reserve in Glenhuntly will open soon.
The Leader asked Glen Eira council what bang ratepayers were getting for their buck, but the council refused to reveal a breakdown of the final bill, acknowledging only that the State Government had provided $700,000.
Leader can reveal the water-themed playground of the future boasts Australia’s first double-dome climbing net, custom-made play equipment, a water play area, outdoor gallery space, urban forest corridor and double flying fox.
Glen Eira Council infrastructure, environment and leisure director Samantha Krull said the reserve, which was formerly a reservoir, included a range of spaces that provided for play, activity and relaxation.
The construction of the playground at the corner of Glenhuntly Rd and Booran Rd is now almost five months behind schedule, building anticipation about its opening on Sunday.
Comments from the Glen Eira Residents Action Group were mostly positive, with member Vicki Howson writing: “Wow, looks fabulous … can’t wait to take my grandchildren here.”
But Ratepayers Victoria vice-president Jack Davis wasn’t impressed, saying the price tag was “ridiculous”.
“It’s an exorbitant use of ratepayers’ funds,” he said.
A Community Fun Day will be held at the reserve on Sunday, April 9.
The official opening will be held on Tuesday, April 11, by Victorian Minister for Innovation Philip Dalidakis.
March 26, 2017
Residents do have cause for concern given the ‘results’ which have thus far been produced by council in regard to the structure planning ‘consultations’. The plans are supposedly based on community feedback. Yet very little of what residents wrote is reflected in any of these documents. When even council is forced to admit that ‘opposition’ to ‘private development’ features prominently in most of the areas listed, but fails to make an appearance in the ‘objectives’ section listed for further action, then something is drastically wrong.
Below is what council sees as the road map for the next phase of ‘consultation’ for four of the designated activity centres – (the screen dumps come from the ‘Transformational Concepts’ report). Please keep in mind that no explanation has been given why Hughesdale and Murrumbeena should be included as part of the first cabs off the rank instead of say Ormond, McKinnon and even Balaclava, Glen Huntly and Caulfield which according to the latest version of Plan Melbourne are now designated as MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTRES!
What we have here is thus another example of a Clayton’s Consultation where decisions have already been made and the ‘results’ of community input are deliberately distorted, or completely ignored!
March 23, 2017
In the most scathing terms possible, and with conclusions that reveal the mess that State and Local planning authorities are in, the Auditor General released a report yesterday that basically found:
It is a comprehensive review of planning in the state and well worth a read for those interested. Some of the most interesting points made emphasise that very few amendments or planning permits adhere to the ‘social, environmental, and economic’ ‘net benefit’ for the community that the legislation requires. In most cases, these elements don’t even get a mention in reported decisions. Here are some quotes, which we believe apply most strongly to Glen Eira City Council:
If the community is to have confidence and trust in the planning system, decisions must be transparent, and planning schemes must be well implemented and operate as intended.
The assessments DELWP and councils provide to inform decisions are not as comprehensive as required by the Act and the VPP. DELWP and councils have also not measured the success of the system’s contribution to achieving planning policy objectives.
Transparent—there is generally strong community participation due to extensive third-party and appeal rights in planning decisions. However, planning assessments used to inform decisions do not transparently analyse all relevant planning matters as required by the Act and the VPP, and not all decisions are accompanied by published reasons.
Some councils are also slow to review and revise local planning schemes, and there is no requirement for DELWP to regularly review and revise the content of the VPP.
The following image sums up many of the issues that bedevil Glen Eira –
The full report can be found at – http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/latest_reports/2016-17/20170322-land-use.aspx
PS: just as a reminder of council’s failure to deliver on long made promises, we repeat part of a previous post that confirms everything the Auditor General claims. The image below comes from the minutes of 2010 and the (in)famous 2010 Planning Scheme Review. Please note all the promises that were made with none being delivered in the space of 7 years! Three councillors of that time are still on council – Esakoff, Hyams and Magee and Delahunty arrived in 2012. What have they done to ‘progress’ the initiatives of the review over this time span? The highlighted sections below speak for themselves.
