GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 18, 2016

Selling Your Soul For $350,000?

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

According to Item 9.11 of the current agenda, Council has been offered $350,000 and $25,000 per annum in order to become the Committee of Management for the land at the top of Glen Eira/Booran Roads.  This land featured in the notorious ‘land swap’ between the Government and the Melbourne Racing Club and was to be established as a ‘public park’. Council’s position has been that it will not accept the land because of its poor access, size, lack of adequate ‘surveillance’, etc. The land was returned to the government once council refused.

Now we find:

  • That clearly some secret deal has been made between the Department, the MRC, and council – to the exclusion of the public
  • Council is willing to renege on its previous position for the meagre sum of $350,000 – (far from the true value of the land)

The officer’s report contains these recommendations. That council –

authorises officers to meet with DELWP to negotiate favourable conditions for Council’s use of the land, including clarity on the type of recreation facilities that could be incorporated onto the site

Potential for the site to be rezoned in future for other uses, without a nett reduction in open space across the municipality;

Plus these paragraphs:

This reserve has previously been offered to, and refused by Council, with Council’s previous position on the land swap arrangement being that any land should be of equivalent value and made available for public use. In the original offer to Council, the (then) Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) had stipulated that the land had to be utilised as public open space.

The new offer from DELWP still states the condition that the reserve is to be used for public recreation purposes. However, officers understand that the current offer is potentially open for discussion on the restrictions, which enables other options for discussion on use of the land

Even more disconcerting is this paragraph –

A current offer has been made of the land of $350,000 to develop it and approximately $25,000 per annum to use to maintain it. This will be inadequate to deliver a quality open space. However, it will be enough to ensure that Council is notdisadvantaged by taking on the reserve in the short term, and will enable Council to implement some potential low cost temporary uses for the space.

Thus, we have the situation where ‘short term’ expediency trumps long term planning and the carrot of $350,000 is sufficient for council to sell its soul! Plus, we certainly do know that once council implements something, then it is almost impossible to change!

It is obvious that discussions have already occurred and will continue. This does not provide justification for a report that is so vague and so uninformative on an issue which has featured prominently for years and years.

 

December 15, 2016

Would Glen Eira Do This?

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

City of Boroondara demolishes Kew townhouses after ‘gross’ permit breach

Dec 15, 2016 Denham Sadler

Two brand new townhouses in Kew have been demolished by the local council after the developer “grossly” exceeded the planning permit. The new development on Normanby Road was ruled to have breached the Boroondara Council’s planning permit by VCAT including by height and its boundaries and was demolished this month. The two townhouses were constructed at 11.5 metres and 12.15 metres high, well above the council’s nine metre height restriction, Boroondara Mayor Phillip Healey says.

“They weren’t missing by millimetres or centimetres, they were missing by a lot,” Cr Healey said. “This wasn’t marginal, this was grossly over where it should be.”

The original building permit to construct the two townhouses was obtained by Nicholas Pantas in September 2012. After a planning officer visited the construction site, an investigation found that Mr Pantas had made “numerous unauthorised changes” to the development.

This decision was then appealed at Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in August 2015, where the developer was given until February this year to amend the developments or have them demolished. The City of Boroondara also took action against Mr Pantas in the Magistrates Court in December last year; he was fined $8000 in penalties and costs.

The National Australia Bank then took possession of the property but were unable to meet the permit and the townhouses were subsequently demolished this month.

“The builder’s action was downright illegal,” Cr Healey said. “This is a costly reminder that planning permits and approved plans must be complied with.”

Kosa Architects helped the developer to obtain the permits and designed the building, but principal Stephen Kosa says the drawings weren’t followed. “The builder didn’t follow the town planning permits or building planning permits,” Mr Kosa said. “Unfortunately the builder decided to try to maximise what he thought to be the end outcome and didn’t follow the approved drawings. We end no involvement in the end construction.”

Despite attempts, Mr Kosa said it was impossible to alter the buildings so they would meet the permits. “The buildings were virtually irretrievable and to bring them back into compliance would virtually be a demolition,” he said.

Cr Healey said the move had enjoyed strong support from the local community. “It’s very pleasing to get supported because we are given the task of managing this and enforcing it, but we don’t always get this level of support,” he said. “We have a responsibility.”

With the two townhouses now completely gone, a new permit will be submitted for the Kew property, and Cr Healey urged the developer to work with the council, not against it. “Work with us – don’t come to us after you’ve done it,” he says. “Work with the process and then these sort of things don’t happen.”

The City of Boroondara has had several recent wins against developers and landowners in court, with a Kew landowner fined $13,500 in May for attempting to remove native trees without a permit, and a builder in Balwyn North fined $6500 for failing to protect two trees during construction.

Source: http://www.domain.com.au/news/city-of-boroondara-demolishes-kew-townhouses-after-gross-permit-breach-20161214-gtas2a/

 

December 5, 2016

Ormond Tower & Politics Galore!

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

A long post, but an extremely important one.  We urge readers to note:

  • The new (ill applied) language of ‘evidence based’.
  • The political grandstanding
  • The possible influence that Wynne’s ‘rejection’ of amendments C147/8 has had where no strategic justification was submitted!
  • The implicit admission that council’s planning for the past decade is abysmal and actually non-existent
  • And much, much more!

Item 9.3 – Council submission on Ormond Tower proposal

Motion to accept submission moved by Athanasopoulos  and seconded by Davey.

ATHANASOPOULOS: said that council needs to ‘hold’ a ‘very strong position’ and the submission does that.

DAVEY: thanks officers for their submission on something as ‘vast’ as the proposal. Said this was an opportunity for council to represent what ‘the community wants’ on this site. Officers had ‘raised’ what they saw as issues – ie ‘height and scale’ and 13 storeys is ‘huge’ and ‘we need to consider something smaller’. The suggestion of a supermarket is ‘also quite significant for that area’ because of its impact on the shopping centre and also ‘traffic’. Impact on Katandra which is used by commuters and school is also significant. Said she was pleased that the officers recommended that the State Government also consider some form of ‘social housing’.

ESAKOFF: moved an amendment that a five storey mandatory height limit be proposed and then scaling back to no more than 2-3 storeys at the back. Said that council would provide justification for this when they appear at the hearings of the advisory committee in February. Seconded by Hyams. Said that there was much ‘concern’ in Ormond and surrounding areas about ‘this proposal’. She was asking for councillors’ support and said ‘I am taking a firm stand on what is appropriate in Ormond’ and she didn’t want to be ‘wishy-washy in our response’. Said the proposal was ‘completely out of sync’ with the planning scheme and ‘community expectations’. Quoted from the actual submission on height and ‘scale’ that is ‘beyond that of urban villages’. This is not in accord with council’s housing diversity policy that designates neighbourhood centres to be of less density than the urban villages. Since Ormond is a neighbourhood centre, she couldn’t see how council can accept anything above 5 storeys.

HYAMS: explained to the gallery the formalities of motions and amendments. Supported Esakoff’s amendment because council has to give the community some idea of where they stand and the submission is ‘very good’. His opinion is ‘that we need to be consistent across Glen Eira’ and council has asked for interim height restrictions and in Bentleigh which is an urban village they’ve asked for 5 storeys. Thought that if council is to be taken ‘seriously’ then 5 storeys ‘also applies to Ormond’. Stated that people might be asking why 5 storeys in Bentleigh and then being ‘less’ concerned when ‘it comes to Ormond’.

MAGEE: said that there already are 5 storeys in the area and that ‘one could argue’ that ‘this is the appropriate height’ but that means that the developer is saying 13 storeys and council is saying 5 storeys. The result would be that council would ‘lose a lot of credibility’. Council would be better of by saying ‘let’s look at parking, let’s look at traffic’ and ‘amenity’. ‘How many floors are going to be parking’ and how many accommodation and ‘start building the profile of how that affects’ the area. If council simply says 5 storeys then this makes it ‘hard for officers’ when they ‘go and do their presentation’. Once they’ve done the traffic and parking it immediately starts ‘putting the negative tone’ and through consensus ‘you reach a common ground’. This ‘could be 5 storeys’ and ‘it might even be 6’. To now say ‘we don’t want anything’ but 5, is a ‘very negative path’ and is ‘very hard to argue that ongoing’. Said this was only the ‘beginning’ of the process and they’ve got the opportunity to ‘sit down and present our submission’ and ‘we have to back that up with figures’. It’s very ‘hard’ to simply ‘go in’ with 5 storeys. It ‘has to be backed up’ with data. Didn’t want ‘them on the back foot’ and ‘saying they just want 5’ and there’s ‘no justification for it’. Magee would prefer that ‘they listen’. Said that council isn’t accepting 13 storeys. Council is merely saying here’s what ‘we think’ and this is based on ‘very sound logic’ and ‘every department’ involved with planning at council ‘will have input into this submission’. ‘It is dangerous to simply say 5 storeys maximum’. He can’t ‘support the motion’ because ‘it doesn’t give us the strongest argument’.

DELAHUNTY: said she thought that council had a better chance of a good outcome if ‘we used an evidence based’ approach. Said councillors know the area and ‘we kind of know what would be appropriate there’ but that ‘we would make a better argument when we do the strategic work’. Therefore ‘I would like not to have a height named in the submission’ because ‘it doesn’t use an evidence based method’. The proposed submission makes a ‘good argument about the height and the scale’ and its ‘relationship to what is currently in Ormond’. Said that council has made some suggestions for planning in Glen Eira over the past 6 months and this ‘suggests that we need time and space’ to do ‘strategic evidence based work’ to justify their recommendations so ‘I am worried about the inconsistency of now putting a height on it and what political mileage’ could be ‘gained out of that’. When they go to the panel in February, ‘we will have some evidence collected by then’ which they can present to the panel about ‘what our preferred height will be’. Said that it’s now council’s preferred height but ‘your preferred height because it is evidence based’. Thought that the ‘stronger position’ as a council is to ‘do the work first’. The community asked for feedback so if council is a ‘strong’ community voice they have to do better than propose something that is ‘not evidence based’. Thought they will get to a ‘height argument’ but only after they’ve done the ‘strategic work’. That will be done by February and because of that she thought ‘it will be stronger’.

TAYLOR: said that ‘we all want to take a position of strong advocacy’ and agreed with Esakoff that none of them ‘want to be equivocal’ and that through their campaigning they are aware of residents’ concerns about height. Agreed with those opposing the amendment that if they could ‘pack’ more ‘evidence’ behind their position they would be better off.

SILVER: thought that listening to the community and then ‘going bang’ in February is ‘the strongest way possible’ of achieving something.

AMENDMENT PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR – Hyams and Esakoff.

Voting against – Magee, Taylor, Delahunty, Davey, Athanasopoulos

ABSTAINED – Silver

ESAKOFF: said she was ‘disappointed’ about the amendment being lost and that she was a ‘little confused about the arguments’ and that the ‘authority’ will decide ‘regardless of our submission’. Thought that on ‘behalf of the community’ that ‘we’ve made a stand’. As for ‘evidence’, she thought that council’s ‘heirarchy’ of urban villages and neighbourhood centres is ‘evidence’. Summed up by going through submission again – ie traffic, impact on local schools, shopping centre, etc. Wanted a more ‘transparent process’ that allowed for meaningful ‘community input’. Said she would ‘get over’ losing out on the amendment but ‘the community mighn’t’. If council suggested 5 or 6 storeys then ‘we wouldn’t have the multiple levels of car parking’ since ‘it would reduce the need for it’ so Magee’s earlier arguments would now be ‘all irrelevant’. ‘This is our submission. This is our chance’. Even though they will have a hearing ‘this is our submission’ in what ‘our community is going to see us standing up for them’.

SILVER: thought this was an ‘unfortunate situation’ in that before the level crossing works they had land ‘subject’ to the same conditions as elsewhere but the Minister changed the legislation and the government is now using this ‘opportunity’ to ‘make a bit more dough’. The ministerial amendment ‘wiped the slate, carte blanche and the government could do whatever it wants’. Ideally council should be the decision maker, but that’s not happening since all they are doing now is telling the government what they think ‘should be the standards’. Didn’t know ‘whether this is a genuine form of consultation’ but seemed like ‘just another way for the government to make more money’.  Council ‘has a standard’ and it’s up to the government to adhere to this standard ‘or ignore it’. That’s why he didn’t support the amendment because he is ‘uncomfortable with the entire sky tower’.

MAGEE: even though he agrees with ‘everything’ Esakoff said thought that they are ‘trying to get to the same position in a different way’. They don’t want 13 storeys but ‘there isn’t even an opportunity for an appeal to VCAT’. The Minister ‘will decide’ on the basis of the reports submitted to him. Council’s just is to put ‘forward a submission based on evidence’. ‘It can’t be an emotional response’. Said that local MPs are ‘on our side’ and they are saying ‘give us the tools, give us the reasoning’ so it’s not 13 storeys. So even though the ‘community may be disappointed that we didn’t put in a blanket 5 storey maximum’ the important ‘part’ is ‘where this will end up’. Didn’t want the ‘negative feel right from the start’. Thought that it had to be ‘evidence based’ and not emotion based.

HYAMS: even though he would have preferred the amendment to be passed, this is still a ‘very good submission’. Thought that it was ‘fair enough that the government does go for some value capture, but it has to be reasonable’. This will be a ‘stand alone building’ and so won’t ‘integrate with the shopping centre’.

DELAHUNTY: thought that what is likely to be ignored is ‘our role’. Planning isn’t simply about height or overshadowing, it is ‘more nuanced’ and how a ‘building might add to a place’ and council is ‘best placed to make those decisions’. Was ‘disappointed’ that council wasn’t the ‘decision maker’. Didn’t ‘want to see lazy planning from the state government’. Council needs to ‘keep up our efforts’  in terms of ‘more than just heights and more than just shadows’ and ‘talk more about Ormond’ and the people and ‘the way the village and the people interact’. Supported the ‘strong submission’ and didn’t think ‘it’s our only chance’ because they will ‘front up again’ in February.

ATHANOSOPOULOS: thought the submission was ‘very strong’ and important to have such debates. Thought that a comment from the gallery earlier about going to VCAT and ‘not having the right evidence’ was important. So this is setting the ‘bar’ and saying ‘we are no longer unprepared’.

ORIGINAL MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

December 1, 2016

Caulfield Village & Virginia Estate

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments 

There is a salutary lesson for residents and council in the comparison of the Caulfield Village development process and what is fast approaching for the Virginia Estate project. Residents need to be fully aware of:

  • The impact of rezoning (ie Caulfield Village rezoned to Priority Development Zone, and Virginia Estate now mooted rezoning to MUZ and/or Commercial 1)
  • Council acceptance of an Incorporated Plan for Caulfield Village and the potential acceptance of a ‘Management Plan’ for Virginia Estate – both of which will allegedly provide the ‘conceptual framework’ for development but without real detail. No objection rights for residents – decision is made by council.
  • Development Plans (ie the details) which then follow for each precinct but which only have to be ‘generally in accordance’ with the Incorporated/Management Plan. These Development Plans can be amended time and time again, and have been for the Caulfield Village.

Readers will remember that the Precinct 2 application (just under another 400 dwellings) for the Caulfield Village was refused at ‘manager’ level by Council without Council displaying this until after the fact. The developer immediately went to VCAT, where the decision has now been handed down. Once again, the developer has basically won, and all previous promises (ie real social housing element, ‘housing diversity’ has gone).

The ‘problem’ with this entire process is that the Schedule for the Caulfield Village which Council accepted and which provides all the ‘musts’ is so vague, and basically useless,  that the developer has all the cards stacked to his advantage. Fundamentally,  council’s requirements were inadequate and our fear is that unless some real lessons are learnt the same will occur at Virginia Estate. For example, the Caulfield Village history is:

  • No on-site visitor parking required (at this stage 2063 dwellings – originally mooted at 1100 in the Incorporated Plan). Precinct 2 now has 45 on site car parking spots but this is dependent on the ‘largesse’ of the developer and not on council’s Schedule.
  • Amendment after amendment that allows balconies to encroach on setbacks
  • No definitive statements on social housing except this useless sentence in the Schedule – The provision of affordable housing in the form of social housing. No definitive statement on how many ‘social housing’ units, or how this is to be managed. Readers will remember that council wrung its hands in dismay when Precinct 1 was allowed without any social housing and the arguments of Hyams et al were that future precincts would meet this requirement. So much for promises!
  • No definitive statements on ‘housing diversity’ – thus Precinct 1 has over 40% as one bedroom dwellings and Precinct 2 will likely have 2.2% of three bedroom apartments according to the plans.

For the full VCAT decision, please see: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/1965.html

As we’ve said above, unless the lessons from Caulfield Village are learnt, and learnt properly, then we fully expect that the Virginia Estate project will follow in the same manner . It is the job of this new council to ensure that every single potential gap in any Management Plan and accompanying Schedule is spelt out so that the developer has as little wriggle room as possible. If this is not done, then we can rest assured that the eventual Management Plan will not be worth the paper it is written on and the entire project will duplicate the abysmal planning that occurred and is still occurring with the Caulfield Village!

 

November 15, 2016

At Last – The Winds Of Change!

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

The following was provided for the gallery at tonight’s council meeting –

img007

Delahunty began the meeting with some explanatory comments regarding the above sheet outlining  ‘Request to Address the Council’.

DELAHUNTY: started by saying that at the appropriate time in the meeting she would call for the suspension of standing orders, so that people in the gallery who had filled out the sheet could address council either with a question or a statement. Said that either she would answer the question or direct the question to the ‘most appropriate person’. There will be a 15 minute time limit. This is ‘trialing one method’ and could change depending on ‘how this goes’ but the aim is ‘greater public consultation’.

Delahunty then proceeded with the traditional oath, accepting previous minutes, reading of petition, etc.

When reporting on the Community Consultation Committee minutes, Hyams made the comment that what Delahunty is proposing is that her motion is ‘fine but that local law is sacrosanct’ and that her proposal goes ‘outside’ the law so he won’t be supporting the motion to suspend standing orders.

Delahunty then explained that if her motion to suspend standing orders is successful, that the questions asked by the gallery is different to the public questions process in that the question and answers won’t be minuted. Public questions will continue at the assigned agenda item (ie at the end of the public meeting). Delahunty then moved the motion to suspend standing orders. Seconded by Magee.

MOTION PUT – VOTING IN FAVOUR – TAYLOR, STRAJT, SILVER, MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, ATHANOSOPOULOS, DAVEY

VOTING AGAINST: HYAMS, ESAKOFF.

MOTION CARRIED.

1st question – asked about the Ormond development proposal and the construction of the platform for the development whether this ‘breached’ any council planning laws. If it didn’t breach any planning laws then under what authority was this done?

ANSWER: Delahunty referred this on to Torres who reported that the Minister for Planning ‘changed the town planning controls’ to ‘facilitate the removal’ of the crossing and to ‘facilitate the development of the railway station’. This meant that ‘no planning permission was required’ from council for these two things. ‘We understand that the deck is an intrinsic part of the redevelopment’ and therefore council has no authority over this since ‘it is a structural requirement’ for the trench and ‘didn’t need planning permission’.

2nd question – asked how council is going to stop this development.

ANSWER: Delahunty said that ‘vision’ that council and the community has for the streets will involve strong lobbying. Council does want to see the area ‘enlivened’ but acknowledged there would be concern over ‘what precedent is set’. Residents should be ‘assured’ that ‘we are determined to do some strategic work’ that residents can ‘tell us’ what your vision is for the area. The CEO then spoke about council’s ‘shopping strip initiative’ which would ‘help form our activity’ as a result of the planning scheme review. Torres also said that they’ve started the process to ‘help inform’ our ‘future activity strategy’ such as questions like ‘what do you like about your shopping centre’. This might seen a ‘simple question’ but is important for ‘creating a vision for the centre’.

3rd Question – whether council would consider working together with other councils to ‘enable a more cost effective delivery of services’.

ANSWER: Delahunty said this was a good point about the need for ‘developing partnerships’ and she’s in favour of it as is the CEO. Because of ratecapping this becomes inevitable and they will have to think ‘more collaboratively with our neighbours’. Hyams also said it’s a ‘good idea’.

4th question – will council provide a date for live streaming of meetings?

ANSWER: Delahunty said that she couldn’t provide a date but that it is definitely on the agenda. They are waiting on a report to come back to council. Magee spoke that he’s in favour but the heritage of the building was a consideration but he didn’t like just one camera focused on the mayor. Privacy issues also needed to be addressed.

Question 5 – whether council would change the order of business so that public questions aren’t at the end of meetings and that the time for questions be extended to 30 minutes?

ANSWER: Delahunty said they would look at this but it’s ‘set out in the local law’ which council can change.

Other questioners were invited to speak to councillors at end of meeting since the 15 minutes was up.

 

November 12, 2016

Open Space Decision Making!

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

 

The purchase of this property for $2.1 million we believe raises many questions. The questions multiply when we find that council’s intention is to lease this property until community ‘consultation’ is undertaken! Here are some queries for your consideration –

  • What happens if the ‘consultation’ results in the majority of residents opposed to the idea as the recent Fosbery/St Aubins proposal showed? Are we therefore in a situation where we are again facing a Clayton’s ‘consultation’ because the decision has already been made – especially since so much money has been spent?
  • Why was this property purchased in the first place given its proximity to Princes Park? Carnegie has many more ‘high priority’ listings than South Caulfield according to the Open Space strategy!
  • Why has Carnegie and other suburbs been ignored and all open space developments have basically occurred in Camden? Given that the Open Space Strategy itself states that this area will only see a marginal increase in population due to its zoning as largely Neighbourhood Residential Zone, why has council spent millions in this ward alone?
  • If council has spent $2.1 million on a very nice looking house, and we would expect at least another half million or more to be incurred in the creation of a ‘park’, then that brings us close to $3 million. Is this really ‘value for money’ for a site that is just over 600 square metres?
  • What will be the length of the proposed lease – 6 months, one year, 2 years?
  • Since the site is on a corner, are we again facing the prospect of streets being closed off and traffic diverted?
  • Why has the purchase of the Magnolia Street house at $1.49 million not been included in the open space reserve budget, but included under the ‘capital works’ budget?

We repeat what we have previously stated. We are totally in favour of more open space throughout the municipality. However, we also desire sound financial decision making that is transparent and accountable and equitable for all residents. The rate of development in our GRZ and RGZ areas are a major concern as council admits. This is where the greatest number of new residents will live and it is in these areas that open space is most desperately required – not in quiet residential streets that are within a stone’s throw of already existing large areas of open space and which the Open Space Strategy admits to seeing only a ‘negligible’ rise in population.

 

October 19, 2016

Residents Speak!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

Gary Max interview with 2 Glen Eira Residents on elections, and council performance

PS: The minutes for Monday night’s special council meeting have now been published on council’s website. We believe that an all time record has been set in that the meeting lasted exactly 3 minutes to ratify the most important document that a council can produce – the Annual Report! Both Delahunty and Lobo were absent.

The stuff ups with minutes still continue however. Item 4.1 states that the item under consideration is the Councillor Code of Conduct. Yet when it comes to the actual nominated 4.1, it is on the Annual Report. Would whoever is doing the minutes please, oh please, proof read and ensure that  what goes out to the public is accurate and a true record of what occurred!

 

October 17, 2016

Chickens Finally Come Home To Roost!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Residents will remember the GESAC basketball allocation fiasco where the Oakleigh Warriors were given the lease of the newly created basketball courts instead of the local McKinnon Basketball group. The arguments presented by Paul Burke at the time were that the Warriors had promised council more money and about 120 hours filled in court time. We also believe that the ombudsman became involved in this decision. Public questions followed, none of which were satisfactorily answered –  for example: are the Warriors paying their weekly rental? are they meeting the stated court hours?

Well now it appears that:

  • Council could be owed thousands and thousands of dollars that the Warriors have not paid on their weekly rent
  • Bob Mann is now gone
  • McKinnon Basketball has been granted access to GESAC
  • Does any of this account for GESAC’s stated loss of $340,000+ from the anticipated income?
  • What does this say about the ‘business plan’ instituted by Newton, Burke and the councillor group? What ‘evidence’ was supplied at the time to ensure that the Warriors could afford what they promised? and
  • How much have residents forked out over the years in subsidising another woeful decision from this administration and councillors?
  • Will this council produce figures that clearly reveal all income and expenditure on GESAC? If not, why not?

Here is the Leader’s version of events –

Oakleigh Basketball Association slammed by messy off-court chaos

Sam Bidey, Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader

OAKLEIGH  Basketball Association is in tatters with financial and governance issues meaning hundreds of children have been forced to leave the league.

The association, which last year had more than 500 junior players, has had its operations put on hold by Basketball Victoria after an inquiry.

Some players have been transferred to the McKinnon Basketball Association, while representative players had the option of trying out with other associations or establishing an Oakleigh team in the McKinnon or Port Phillip associations.

Glen Eira Council reached a deal with McKinnon which will see the association have use of the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre basketball courts this season; the courts would usually be used by Oakleigh.

Basketball Victoria manager Stephen Walter said he initially stepped in to resolve a governance issue as two committees had claimed control of the ­association.

“There were lot of families leaving the club or they just weren’t re-registering; the club had lost critical mass to run a domestic competition,” Mr Walter said.

Tony Pitara, who was president of one of the club committees, said he had identified a tax debt at the club, dating back to 2009 and that was being addressed.

Mr Pitara said he respected Basketball Victoria’s decision, but was confident that had the club sorted out its internal “politics”, it could have found a solid financial footing in two to three ­seasons.

Karen Wilson, vice-president of the newer committee said she had been informed the debt was in the region of a “manageable” $70,000.

But she said the sacking of the head of coaching had created dissatisfaction and prompted the establishment of the second committee.

Cheltenham mum Rosey Cooke, whose son Andrew had played at Oakleigh for five years, said parents weren’t consulted.

“The kids don’t understand all this business — they just want to play ball,” Ms Cooke said.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/oakleigh-basketball-association-slammed-by-messy-offcourt-chaos/news-story/5e556fc1430a1dbbaa4f4e27ccc34a23

 

October 17, 2016

From A Resident

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

We’ve received this email from a resident asking for Tucker Ward candidates’ responses –

Dear Candidates,

As you are a candidate for Tucker Ward, I would like to hear your views about the following local problem.

If you visit Mckinnon station and walk along Nicholson street, you will see exposed pilings, both within the station and external rail corridor. The job to rebuild Mckinnon station and reinstate appropriate aesthetic finishes to the rail corridor is clearly unfinished and not done to an equivalent standard as Ormond Station.

Since the beginning of the level crossing removal, we have been asking what the final structures will look like. Early on, we were told there would be a concrete wall with additional fencing for safety and screening. This has not been the outcome.

In the rush to re-open McKinnon station first, the completion of the concreting and aesthetic finishes were not completed. Not only are the exposed pilings and partial concreting unsightly, but the incomplete nature of the works appear to be unsafe (e.g., the exposed sharp edges of the metal pilings). This will inevitably encourage vandalism, which has already started.

However, the job is finished according to the Level Crossing Removal Authority, with the exception of some revegetation along parts of the rail corridor. They claim that Glen Eira Council have signed off on the “design”, including the exposed pilings and partially concreted beams. This clearly contradicts the concrete covering of these same structures that have been done at the Ormond location.

Most of Bent Street and Nicholson Street have already been sold for development. There are simply not enough long-term residents left to garner interest in this local issue.

So my question to you is: What will you do, if elected, to ensure the Level Crossing Removal Authority really finish McKinnon station and the surrounding rail corridor?

Kind regards,

xxxxxxxxx

Resident of Nicholson Street McKinnon, Tucker Ward

 

October 14, 2016

Camden Ward ‘Meet The Candidates’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning
[26] Comments 

A very good turnout at last night’s Camden ward ‘Meet the Candidates’ forum. Congratulations to all candidates for showing up, namely – Delahunty, Pinskier, Hermann, Sounness, Silver, Fayman and Strajt. Questions focused on the following:

  • Community safety – with some members of the audience arguing that Glen Eira is very safe. Candidates responded that crime statistics don’t bear this out and that if even some residents feel unsafe that it is council’s duty to listen and consider their concerns. Ms Pinskier said that she was opposed to CCTV cameras and ‘angry’ about guns in parks which she is absolutely against.
  • One resident from Redan Road, Caulfield East asked why Delahunty and Sounness voted against 92% of residents’ wishes in regard to council’s traffic management ‘solution’ for the street and why emails weren’t answered. Delahunty responded by saying that the measures introduced were in response to ‘safety’ issues and that she makes no apologies for that.
  • Another resident asked how much money council had raised in the past few years from the open space levy and how much of this money had been spent in acquiring new open space in Camden. Sounness replied that there is a process in place where officers look at what is available for purchase and then determine how to proceed. Given the high cost of land at the moment councillors have to decide if any purchase is ‘value for money’. Delahunty then outlined what council had spent money on – ie Riddell Parade, Eskdale Road, and the purchase of an Aileen Avenue property (to be settled in November).
  • Next question was directed to new candidates about the changes to the public questions protocols and whether they thought this was ‘discriminatory’. All new candidates stated that they were opposed to this change and Pinskier favoured full streaming of council meetings. Silver added that he thought there should be a limit on the number of questions per individual because council could then run until 3am! The resident also asked about why the ‘red fence’ of the racecourse was still up and why council allowed this. On the fence question Sounness stated that he thought it was part of the racecourse only to be corrected that it was both council’s and the MRC’s responsibility. Delahunty conceded that council should get moving on this issue and that it was ridiculous that people couldn’t ask questions like this at council instead of a forum.
  • Another resident asked the new candidates for their definitions of ‘neighbourhood character’ and ‘overdevelopment’ and how they could ‘guarantee’ (as Silver stated on his facebook page) that there would be ‘sensible development’. Silver responded that his definition of this is ‘family friendly’ development with proper apartment size to fit 2 adults and 2 children and the need for gardens. Fayman was concerned about waiving of car parking places and thought that 3 or 4 storeys along main arterial roads was justifiable as were one bedroom apartments near university. Strajt spoke about population growth and how councils that joined forces would be best placed to resist overdevelopment. Hermann called overdevelopment the most important issue facing the community and undertook to get fully ‘up to speed’.
  • There was a question on preferences and whether this was done on political grounds. Delahunty said that she put those who had real estate advertising on their boards as last. Silver thought this was a ‘slur’ and that there was no ‘impropriety’ or ‘conflict of interest’ concerns. Hermann thought it was time for fresh faces and that’s why Delahunty and Sounness were put last on her voting card.
  • Another questioner was interested in governance and brought up the issue of notice of motion, recording of council meetings and general transparency and accountability and whether the local law would be changed as ‘first item on the agenda’. Silver said it was ‘up there’ but not his first item and didn’t know whether these suggested options ‘would work’.  Sounness, Hermann, Delahunty were all in favour.
  • A further question was on the large number of developments in Elsternwick, especially the shopping strip and whether candidates felt it was appropriate that this rate of development continues. Also queried was the future of the Elsternwick library. Strajt talked about the system failing and the need for wholesale changes so that councils have more control. Sounness said he would like to see 4, 5 or 6 storey development in some areas so that people can get to know each other and that where there is ‘density’ that it has to be well designed and ‘comfortable’. Hermann was concerned about traffic in Elsternwick and overshadowing and if elected would do all she could to change this. Delahunty said that structure planning could control the ‘rate of change’ as was pointed out by Wynne. Said she will ‘wear’ the criticism as council hasn’t done any structure planning and that when the Coles development happens this will ‘stretch’ the rate of development even further. Structure planning will help and that ‘should have been done a long time ago’.
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »