GE Governance


PS: Not for the first time has Lipshutz and his cronies attempted to thwart what most reasonable people would consider to be open and transparent government. Below is an image from the 2013 minutes where the groundwork for the current agenda item was laid. Please note:

  • The mover and seconder of the motion
  • How the current proposed changes to the Local Law contradicts the council resolution from that time (ie all questions answered shall be minuted. The current version implies that only those ‘read’ out will be minuted!)
  • Since this September 2013 meeting, the Local Laws Advisory committee has only met on 3 occasions – 9th April 2014; 3rd December 2014; 18th May 2015. The 2015 members of this committee were – Lipshutz, Hyams, Okotel and Lobo! Need we say more? Thus 3 meetings in two and a half years to come up with this nonsense!
  • We refer readers to our post of the time in order to assess councillors’ comments – see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/public-questions-whittling-away/

Pages from September03-2013-MINUTES

After years and years of promising to amend the Local Law there is finally an agenda item that proposes to further erode residents’ democratic rights and to make it even harder to get answers out of council. Submissions will be called for so we urge all residents to take particular notice of what is proposed and to think carefully what this will mean for transparency and accountability in Glen Eira.

Most of the changes focus on the right to ask public questions. Here is what the arch conservatives want –

  • Agenda items are posted online on Friday after 12pm. Public questions can currently be emailed to council by 12pm of the day of the council meeting (ie Tuesday). The proposal is to reduce this deadline by 24 hours (ie Monday 12pm). Even if the argument is that officers require more time to answer questions, surely this impediment can be overcome simply by publishing the agenda well before Friday afternoon so that residents can read the agenda and get their questions in earlier? Plenty of other councils publish their agenda a week prior to the formal council meeting –(Bayside, Stonnington for example).
  • Any question that is now over 150 words WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Previously the wording was ‘should be 150 words’ and to the best of our knowledge, no question was rejected which contained more than 150 words. Whilst some may argue that good questions should be able to be submitted below this number, there surely are occasions when detail is required and questions exceed 150 words? What this also means is that questions over 150 words will NOT BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES. Another blow to accountability!
  • No more than 2 questions will be accepted from a single resident and they HAVE TO BE PRESENT IN THE CHAMBER FOR THEIR QUESTIONS TO BE READ OUT! Again, we are not sure whether this means that if the person is not present their questions will be recorded in the minutes. All we’re told is that the question will be answered by ‘mail or email’. We suspect that they won’t become part of the official record since another part of the proposals states that ‘The minutes will record questions read…’
  • Even the quarterly report will now only record those question read out and not the number asked!

What is extraordinary about this report is that not a single word of justification for any of the recommended changes is provided.  Why council (or rather the stacked Local Laws committee) considers any of these changes necessary and beneficial is anyone’s guess. We have no doubt that these changes are to the detriment of open and accountable government – rather ironic we feel when the state government is currently reviewing the Local Government Act with the stated intention of improving governance! We also remind readers that Delahunty is on this advisory committee!

Thus for all the promises of amending the Local Law in terms of the ‘unauthorised sporting groups’ (aka the Frisbee affair) and basic questions of Notice of Motion, that this is all that the Local Laws committee could come up with after years and years of ‘consideration’ is a disgrace. It is even more disgraceful that not a single word of justification is provided in the Corporate Counsel’s report as to why such changes are deemed to be necessary and why the new CEO has permitted such a report to even go out as the official record! All this means is the further erosion of good governance in Glen Eira and the resolve to diminish public participation even further.

PREFERRED CHARACTER STATEMENTS

Part of any planning scheme review is the imperative to locate any gaps or deficiencies in the scheme and to plug such holes. Councils generally approach this task by diligently analysing VCAT decisions and determining the grounds that VCAT stated in rejecting council positions. The next step is to return to the planning scheme and determine how it can be bolstered to ensure that the grounds available to VCAT are closed off or at the very least, made far more difficult to ignore.

Needless to say, there is nothing in the current Discussion Paper which provides even a hint as to what the ‘problems’ might be. Yet, decision after decision makes it absolutely clear – the failure of council to provide any statement as to ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ in housing diversity (ie GRZ, RGZ) and totally inadequate ‘policy’ in minimal change (NRZ) areas – where ‘waffle’ replaces fine grained statements.

Yes, we repeat! Even large areas within the Neighbourhood Residential Zones are in the same boat as residents living in GRZ or RGZ zones.

Here are two recent VCAT decisions for developments in the so called ‘protected’ areas of Neighbourhood Residential Zones. Some areas have council’s version of ‘preferred character statements’ which amount to nothing more than waffly, motherhood pronouncements, whilst other areas in the NRZ do NOT HAVE even this pretence of such a statement.

The Council’s concern also relies on a misplaced emphasis on preferred character rather than existing (or prevailing) character. It is correct that the minimal change area policy has a specific objective relating to preferred character. However, there is no formal statement of preferred character in or under the scheme for the relevant character precinct in which the land is located. The objective relating to preferred character is to ‘encourage development that is responsive to its site and context, integrates with and enhances the prevailing neighbourhood character. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/306.html

The Glen Eira Planning Scheme does not include a preferred neighbourhood character statement for this area, and the Clause 22.08 local policy broadly encourages dual occupancy developments in this location in a side-by-side layout, provided that they respect the existing neighbourhood character of the area.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/870.html

Thus, further question that residents should consider asking their elected representatives are:

·       What gaps in the Planning Scheme has VCAT identified through its decisions? Will council address each and every one of these gaps?

·       Will council introduce preferred character statements for all of Glen Eira that are detailed, specific, and work to ensure that neighbourhood character is protected? If not, why not?

2

Untitled

Given recent events, we thought it would be illuminating to revisit one of our earlier posts (June 19th, 2013) so that residents may gauge for themselves how much credibility to assign to anything our councillors say, and especially Hyams. Here is an article from the Leader of that date. The comments for that post are also worth re-reading since time has proven them to be very prescient.

permit

VCAT has granted a permit for the Centre Road development. It will be 8 storeys and 33 dwellings, plus car parking waivers. The original application was for 9 storeys and 40+ dwellings, but amended plans were submitted following the compulsory conference. PS: correction. Here is the link to the full VCAT decision – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/538.html

These extracts from the decision once again point out the deficiencies in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. As per usual, any talk of introducing height limits for commercial allotments is far too little and far too late. The horse has bolted! Council had a decade and more to act. It has steadfastly refused to do a single thing! This is now the result!

Some quotes

The acceptability of the height of this proposal is influenced by the planning scheme’s policy framework as it applies to this locality.

The policy identifies three urban villages in the municipality (Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick) and no distinction is drawn between them in terms of the role and scale of each centre.

Significantly, there are no height controls applying to the Bentleigh urban village, or to any of the other urban villages.

The policy framework outlined above provides a strong level of support for a building on this site that is higher than the prevailing one and storey scale of development in the centre.  The achievement of the Council’s urban village and housing diversity objectives will almost inevitably involve the introduction of buildings into the urban village that have a greater height than the buildings that currently comprise the Bentleigh centre.

In the absence of more detailed built form controls or guidelines than those currently in the planning scheme, our finding that higher buildings can be contemplated where the Commercial 1 Zone abuts the RGZ, does not greatly assist us in forming a view about the acceptability of an eight storey building on a site that has an abuttal to the GRZ and the NRZ. 

In these precincts, developments of three to four storeys are emerging on consolidated sites in both the RGZ and the GRZ.  That analysis demonstrates that the urban village designation and the associated policies are having a profound impact in changing the built from character of the Bentleigh centre in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of those policies

We commented during the course of the hearing that Clause 55 does not apply to the consideration of a building of 5 or more storeys. Consequently, reliance on Standard B17 is limited to its use as a guide only.  In this case compliance with B17 up to level 3 (including the width of the lane) is of some assistance because it is these levels that will have the greatest visual bulk impacts on the immediate neighbours.  Above level 3, the additional setback is significant.  Having regard to the nature of the interfaces we have described previously, and having regard to the strategic context of the review site, we are satisfied that the interface treatment is acceptable.

We acknowledge that the building will be viewed from the wider residential hinterland to the south.  The visibility of the building is not however an impact that is beyond the reasonable expectations that emanate from the Council’s designation of this locality as an urban village and a housing diversity area.

Readers will remember the saga of Claire Street, McKinnon and Magee’s crocodile tears of woe on the steps of VCAT. The street featured again at Tuesday night’s meeting with Magee jumping on the same old  bandwagon  – everything is VCAT’s fault rather than council policy, planning and zoning.

The only reason that the VCAT member knocked back the first Stellar application for three storeys and thirty plus units was that the developer was exceedingly greedy. No decent setbacks, and internal amenity suitable for a mole – ie subterranean apartments! Another application has now gone in for 33 units and will end up at VCAT again.

But things have now got even worse. There is another application in by the same company Steller, for 1-9 Claire Street that will see: ‘six, three storey townhouse and two three storey apartment (44 dwellings)”. Stellar has basically bought out the entire street and the sole remaining resident has decided that enough is enough and has put his property (4 Claire St) up for sale.

We have no doubt that both Stellar applications will be passed by VCAT. Not because they ‘ignore’ council policy, but because it IS COUNCIL POLICY TO ENCOURAGE 3 STOREY DEVELOPMENT ON CONSOLIDATED LOTS and the zoning is GRZ. When the VCAT member rejected the first application for 6-10 Claire St., he made it absolutely clear in his judgement that zoning and lack of preferred character statements make Claire St.(and much of McKinnon) a candidate for this kind of rampant (over)development. It is Council policy. Please note the number of times the phrase ‘policy’ or ‘planning scheme’ feature in the extracts from this judgement (below).

Magee and the other councillors can continue with their nonsense and the spurious blame game, but residents need to appreciate the truth. Any Planning Scheme Review that fails to address zoning and the limitations of the schedules is not a review – it is a whitewash!

The judgement below says it all in our view.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1762.html

These local policies strongly support the development of apartment style buildings in Claire Street , McKinnon, in a manner that will result in significant levels of change. This is a deliberate and considered policy outcome sought by the Glen Eira  City Council. It allows policies to also be implemented that reduce the ability for any meaningful level of medium density housing to be developed in the majority of other residential areas within the municipality. In other words, the Council has chosen to allow significant change in limited neighbourhoods, so as to preserve to a strong level the existing character of most of its other neighbourhoods.

While this individual proposal fails to address some important design matters, it is inevitable, in applying the local policies drafted by the Glen Eira City Council, that Claire Street, McKinnon will be subject to significant levels of change in the short to medium term.

Although townhouse developments of two and three double storey dwellings have started to appear in this area, the restrictions now in place over most of the municipality will act to focus more intensive development into areas such as this in McKinnon. It may not mean the whole street is filled with three storey apartment buildings but it almost certainly means that the existing single dwellings on a lot will be gradually replaced. It may take twenty or thirty years but, based on submissions and statements of grounds, I am not sure that existing residents appreciate the changes that will occur in response to development outcomes sought by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

In this proceeding, Mr & Mrs Menko lamented that most of the lots in Claire Street have now been purchased by developers, and are likely to be subject to forms of development like the one before me. They resist this level of change, and the likelihood that only two of the original single dwellings will remain. They also raise concerns about how this extent of development can be suitable for a dead-end street, with its only access point to McKinnon Road, and limited on-street car parking supply. They also question the ability of McKinnon Road to accommodate the additional traffic. I understand the frustrations and anger expressed by residents about the rate of change that might occur in Claire Street . However the extent of redevelopment that is likely to occur is a direct realisation of the very clear intent of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, in particular the local policies created by the Glen Eira City Council.

  That is, this form of development and rate of change, is consistent with the planning scheme that I am charged to apply. Further, it is not my role to review, on an ad-hoc basis, the suitability of this dead-end street to accommodate this level of change, nor the ability of McKinnon as a whole to accommodate additional population and traffic. The Glen Eira City Council has had the opportunity to carefully consider such matters, over an extended period of time, and has identified Claire Street  McKinnon as an appropriate location for the placement of a housing diversity area, to take the additional housing demands of the municipality.

  The Glen Eira Planning Scheme clearly supports substantial development in Claire Street  McKinnon. This substantial development is not expected to imitate or reflect the style and form of the single dwellings that currently exist in this and other streets. Instead, a policy intent has been clearly been articulated for Claire Street  by the Glen Eira City Council, that encourages more intense and more diverse housing forms. Invariably this means that apartment buildings are strongly encouraged in this neighbourhood.

It is clear, when taking into account the policy framework as whole, that apartment style development is the undeniable future for Claire Street , McKinnon, as clearly identified and articulated by the local policies contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, as drafted by the Glen Eira City Council.

the apartment building is excavated below natural ground level to the rear boundary, such that the ground floor level will be around 1.3 metres below natural ground level, and the ceiling height of the ground floor apartments will be roughly matching the standard fence height on the boundary.

The residents urged upon me that a more appropriate development will consist of two storeys in scale. I agree with their submissions that the two storey apartment building at 13 Claire Street represents a more successful integration into the surrounding context. Further, for the reasons set out above I agree that this proposed three storey building is too big and bulky, with inappropriate setbacks, for the review site. However I have not been persuaded that the site is unsuitable for a three storey apartment building per se. Given the extent of policy support for a significant level of additional housing in this location, and the vast size of this consolidated site, I am not willing to conclude that it is not possible for a well designed three storey apartment building to be found to be an appropriate built form response to this context

Mr & Mrs Menko also raises a concern with the potential increase in traffic in Claire Street  and their difficulties in accessing McKinnon Road. I acknowledge that this proposed development, if approved, would have increased such traffic levels, and the delays currently experienced in turning onto McKinnon Street. However the traffic impacts of the proposal were considered by Council’s traffic engineers, and in their independent and expert opinion, the surrounding road network can accommodate the expected increase in traffic.

The policy framework of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme clearly articulates a future for Claire Street  McKinnon that anticipates significant change and more substantial housing developments. The Glen Eira City Council has adopted such a vision as a means of protecting much of its other residential areas from even a moderate amount of medium density housing. That is the policy framework that has been adopted and applied to this municipality for over 11 years, and is the vision that I must have regard to and implement in my decision making task.

We’ve uploaded the Planning Scheme Review Discussion Paper HERE.

Please peruse and we welcome your (initial) views.

In 2010 Council went through the motions of a ‘review’ on its planning scheme.  The councillors who partook in this ‘review’ and remain on council are: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Magee and Lobo. They resolved to pass the ‘action plan’ that is pictured below (from the minutes of August 2010).

We urge readers to note the following:

  • Items highlighted in YELLOW have not been completed or even attempted as far as we know
  • Time frames (ie the ‘when’ sections) mean absolutely nothing.
  • All initiatives to be done ‘internally’ – very few reported on!

Thus, these images stand as a damning indictment of these councillors and administration. A repeat of this sham must not be allowed to happen with the current ‘review’.

Pages from 2010August10-2010-MINUTES2_Page_1Pages from 2010August10-2010-MINUTES2_Page_2Pages from 2010August10-2010-MINUTES2_Page_3

It is our understanding that Minister Wynne has ordered Glen Eira to finally undertake a Planning Scheme Review. He has also rejected we believe council’s attempt for an extension to the deadline he set.

Pages from 201604-ge-news

What stands out like a sore thumb in the Glen Eira submission is:

  • the lack of detail and justification for the various positions – ie of the 72 ‘recommendations’ made by the committee, council does not provide any comment for 44 of these.
  • The hypocrisy is literally astounding when we find that for some recommendations (ie inclusion of structure plans, urban design frameworks, etc Council is in agreement! Pity that this ‘agreement’ has not seen any action for the past 14 years!)
  • Even more hypocritical is the repetition of this sentence – Boundaries should be based on housing policies and community consultation.
  • All in all, council’s submission is another attempt to justify what it has done and to maintain the status quo. Developers should be very pleased with Council’s set of responses!

The ‘evidence’ for these claims is obvious once we compare Council’s stated position with some of its neighbours. Below is Glen Eira versus Bayside. Whilst these two councils do agree on numerous items, their differences are what is most telling.  We focus in this post on the recommendations for the Residential Growth Zone only (RGZ). A quick summary –

Untitled

Recommendation #20Delete reference to four storey development from the purpose of the zone.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE (no comment provided to justify or explain this position)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – The purpose of the RGZ is to enable new housing growth and diversity in locations that offer good access to services, transport and other infrastructure. In developed areas, a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and areas of restricted housing growth is required. A four storey development outcome will be appropriate in these circumstances and therefore it is recommended that the current reference remains in the purpose of the zone.

 

RECOMMENDATION #21 Amend ResCode to trigger the need for assessment for low rise apartments where the provisions within the RGZ contradict that of ResCode.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – (no comment provided to justify or explain this position)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – ResCode was not intended to provide direction on apartment typology. It is recommended that the Better Apartments tool be implemented as the new assessment mechanism for apartment’s development of any scale.

RECOMMENDATION #30Apply Clause 55 to multi dwellings greater than four storeys.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – ResCode should apply to all forms of multi-dwelling residential development. The lack of prescription in the State Government’s Higher Density Design Guidelines (6 storeys and above) creates uncertainty

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – Rescode was not designed to assess multi storey building typology. A more appropriate tool such as the Better Apartments should apply for multi dwellings greater than four storeys

RECOMMENDATION #41 – Under Clause 32.07-9 Application requirements, delete: For residential development of five or more storeys, an urban context report and design response as required in Clause 52.35.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – Agree subject to ResCode applying to multi-dwelling residential developments of five or more storeys

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – An urban context report and design response are required to ensure that the purpose of the zone, the future vision of the area and any sensitive interfaces are taken into consideration

RECOMMENDATION #42 – Under Clause 32.07-11 Dwelling and residential building, delete: For a development of five or more storeys,excluding a basement, the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

GLEN EIRA – AGREE (no comment or explanation provided)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – In the absence of a more current policy to guide Higher Density Residential Development it is considered that the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential should remain. It is recommended that it be replaced with the Better Apartments policy once it is implemented.

« Previous PageNext Page »