GE Governance


Elliott Avenue, Carnegie has featured prominently in the news and on this site. (See what it looked like a little while back – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/one-little-local-street/). It is now utterly destroyed because of the new zones. Not only Elliott Avenue, but all surrounding areas. People are leaving in droves – not because they are after a profit in selling to developers, but because their dream home, their lifestyle, and everything they valued about this area has disappeared. Yet council has not had the guts to do a single thing about its slipshod and woeful planning. No amendments of any note have occurred in the past two years for housing diversity. No promises made ten years ago have been implemented. No concern whatsoever for the chaos caused by these developments that can take a year, so that residents can’t even get out of their driveways because of trucks in the street – many no doubt without work permits! All councillors can do is complain about not having the ‘tools’ in the planning scheme, or that they really need to look carefully at Neerim Road (Okotel). But they have not lifted a finger to get the ball rolling on anything. And what of the urban heat effect that all these dwellings will create? What of infrastructure? What of subterranean car parks that impact on the water table? What of parking? What of open space? Not a thing done!

In order to give residents an idea of what is happening we’ve colour coded the following street map which shows development since the zones were introduced. Council can blame everyone else until the cows come home – but there is no denying that the zones are without doubt the impetus for all this overdevelopment. With good strategic planning and community consultation some of the damage could have been avoided – but that of course means less rates and treating residents with respect!

carnegie

3-9 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 51 dwellings

6 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 2 double storeys (permit)

8-12 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey – no number of dwellings stated

14-16 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storeys, 21 dwellings (permit granted by council and vcat)

22-28 Jersey Parade CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 39 dwellings (permit)

33-35 Jersey Parade 4 storey, 28 dwellings (permit issued by council)

1 Tranmere – 4 storey, number of dwellings not named

5 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 4 dwellings

10 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 2 storey, 4 dwellings

16-18 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 26 dwellings (refused by council)

2 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 13 dwellings

15-17 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 55 dwellings (council and vcat permit)

 

PS: From today’s (21/10) Moorabbin Leader front page –

centre

letters

12

trees

INDICATOR

Here’s an important question. How do you ‘prove’ that as an organisation you’re going from strength to strength? That you are giving value for money to your clientele? That you are efficient, responsible, and client oriented? Well, for local government we have what is known as the Best Value Reports. The aim of these, according to legislation, is to quantify and prove that you’re on the road to ‘continuous improvement’.

Glen Eira City Council has developed its Best Value reporting into a fine art. They manage to show ‘continuous improvement’ by literally changing the goal posts. For example: there are ‘targets’ set and then actual performance for the year is stated against those targets. Thus, if this year the target for home care building help is 4,500 hours and council achieves 4,788 hours, not only is the target exceeded, but council is an unmitigated success here. Wrong! Because back in 2009/10 the target for this identical service just happened to be 4956 hours and the stated performance was 4,852 hours! Thus 5 years ago council was offering more and doing better than it is today! And remember, we’re supposed to be a municipality with an ageing population and thousands of residents who are entitled to pensioner or disability assistance.

When the 2009/10 Best Value Reports are compared to the 2014/15 version, then we really see how many services have gone backwards and how many goal posts have been shifted in order to gild the lily and to make council appear as wonderful performers. Nothing could be further from the truth on many of the areas listed on this comparison. That should make residents ask the obvious –

  • When council promises in its budgets and council plans that it will maintain the level of service, then why have so many services been reduced?
  • Why, when rates keep going up 6.5% for the past 7 or 8 years, have services gone down? Where is this money going?
  • Why change the goal posts unless the attempt is to camouflage what is really happening?
  • Are we, as residents, really and truly getting value for money?

Here is a mere sample of some of comparisons between the 2009 and the 2015 versions of the Best Value Reports. We’ve upload both HERE (2009/10 and 2014/15) and urge readers to check these for themselves. Please also consider the waffle that constitutes the ‘continuous improvement’ sections and the often meaningless criteria attached to evaluating ‘success’ – such as publishing 4 editions of something.

Once again, it would appear that facts are malleable. If they don’t fit the image you are trying to project, then simply change those facts to accord with the success you need to fabricate. And whilst you’re at it – don’t tell your residents that this is what you are doing. We congratulate Council again on its superb sleight of hand!

bv

PS – MORE SPIN!!!! – MAGEE ON 3AW YESTERDAY

 

PPS: 4 houses left in Elliott Avenue, Carnegie. Thank you council!

IMG_3714

PLUS 7 STOREY APPLICATION FOR 317-319 NEERIM ROAD – BELOW!

IMG_3726

It is one thing for a council to disseminate its rose coloured glasses view of its performance. Spin comes with the political territory. It is another thing entirely for a council to use public funds to promulgate falsehoods with the intention of misleading and deceiving residents.

The latest outrage comes with council’s announcement on its website that it will print and distribute a letter/flyer to every single resident in the municipality. (UPLOADED HERE) The claim is that this will cost 11 cents per letter. Be that as it may, please remember that all monies collected by a council are meant to be spent for the benefit of the community and NOT to engage in damage control, or to evade responsibility for the woeful planning performances that we have witnessed in the past few years. Council can spend thousands of dollars blaming everyone else except itself, but it can’t spend this same amount of money in ‘consulting’ the community when it really matters – ie the introduction of the residential zones.

What is absolutely inexcusable is the fact that in its epistle council has committed the sin of omission – or to all intents and purposes – it has lied. Whoever wrote the letter should be hauled over the coals, and whoever authorised it, should be dismissed. In our view, the buck stops at Newton’s desk. Such behaviour and deviousness is literally beyond the pale. And this cannot be another of council’s famous ‘clerical errors’. It is without doubt deliberate, premeditated, and disgusting!

We are referring of course to the ‘conveniently’ edited table presented below – council version

Any resident reading this could be forgiven for thinking that Glen Eira’s total number of new apartments equals 1054. The sentence speaks of ‘apartment growth’ – full stop. What this table deliberately avoids mentioning is that the figures relate to the NUMBER OF APARTMENTS ERECTED IN BUILDINGS OF 4 OR MORE STOREYS. Nor is the table itself complete. Glen Eira is ranked THIRD in this list – which has again been conveniently cropped so that the full story is not told. Never mind the fact that many of those municipalities with greater dwelling numbers also happen to have commercial zones 2 and 3 times the size of Glen Eira’s and that is where most 4 storeys dwellings have gone. (ie Stonnington has over 6% of its area zoned as commercial. Glen Eira has 2.2%)

Yet what makes matters even worse, and which points to the fact that either we are dealing with total incompetents with no corporate memory, or that this is another example of council’s manipulation of the facts and the truth. Council minutes of June 30th, 2015 (a short 3 and a bit months ago) featured an officer’s report on the State Government’s ‘Better Apartments Discussion Paper’ – where in fact this bar chart was first published. On page 110 of these minutes we find the following –

june minutes

How convenient that residents:

  • Aren’t informed that the figures relate to dwellings in 4 or more storey buildings
  • How convenient that this vital information has been cropped and deleted, and
  • How convenient that now residents will be sold the myths that present council in the most positive light – ie. blame everyone else but not us!
  • How appalling that Glen Eira City Council can sink to this level of deception and just to rub salt into the wounds – use public monies for their own devious and unethical purposes! Surely it is time that the Code of Conduct for officers was published – as (needless to say) countless other councils see fit to do!
  • The biggest question is whether any councillor will insist that this farce be stopped in its tracks and a public apology listed in all media outlets. That should sort out the sheep from the goats!

We doubt that many residents bother to read council minutes. Thus they will be assailed with ‘information’ that is skewed, inaccurate, and intended, we believe, to deceive and mislead. Finally, when residents cannot trust the information that is disseminated by its council, then we are really in trouble.

Item 9.1 – MRC application for 30+ radio towers

Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz all declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. Magee moved to accept the motion to refuse, plus that council write to the Minister & Department, plus all relevant MPs seeking permission to create 6 sporting ovals in the centre of the racecourse. Seconded by Delahunty.

MAGEE: stated that the application ‘in itself’ was fairly ‘innocuous’ but ‘far reaching’ since it ‘encroaches further and further’ onto crown land. For years there has been this encroachment by the MRC – ie ‘training track after training track being developed’, ‘large screens being built’ and application to ‘increase the size of the Tabaret’. There are 3 purposes for the racecourse (park, racing, etc) and that racing is ‘well and truly catered for’. Said that this application is to set up a ‘permanent structure on usable crown land’. Went over the lack of open space, the number of kids unable to play sport because of lack of grounds, and that ‘teams are capped’ turning away stacks of kids. There is a master plan being done and all the sporting clubs are saying this is a ‘great opportunity’ to have this open space for sport in the centre. Now council has the ‘opportunity’ to apply for use of the land. The MRC writes to the ‘authority’ and council is now wanting to do the same. Claimed that it ‘would be very hard’ for the Minister and Department to ‘actually refuse us’ given that they have approved the screens, etc. ‘We have waited far too long’ and ‘this open space belongs to you’. Said with this motion council will see who opposes them so they will have ‘someone to talk to’.

DELAHUNTY: said that it’s a ‘hard act’ to follow Magee since he is so ‘passionate’ and speaks so ‘eloquently’. Racing is already ‘well catered for’ so ‘this doesn’t meet the objectives of’ the Crown Land Grant. Council takes the Open Space Strategy ‘very seriously’ and the application ‘flies in the face of those strategic objectives’ so it behoves council to refuse the application. The motion is moving forward towards achieving sporting fields and open space.

SOUNNESS: said he wasn’t speaking against the spirit of the refusal but thought that the bit about the ‘tipping point is weak’. If this went to VCAT it would ‘prove to be a less than successful’ outcome. Endorsed the other part of the motion and there should be the opportunity for the ‘public to enjoy’ the course. Repeated that he has got ‘reservations’ about the ‘tipping point’ since there have been ‘other applications’ that were equally the ‘tipping point’.

PILLING: endorsed part 2 of the motion but on the refusal said that while he understands Sounness’ points he doesn’t agree since there will be visual impact to Queen’s Avenue since the land is already raised and did think that council ‘can justify’ the motion.

OKOTEL: supported the motion because this would create a ‘visual impact’ and park users ‘aren’t being adequately catered for at the moment’. Said that ‘at the moment’ access is ‘restricted’ and ‘what’s pleasing’ is that ‘now action is taken’ in the attempt to ‘move forward’ and ‘discover who might be responsible for that blockage’ to permission. The motion ‘will weed out’ those responsible ‘for the blockage’.

LOBO: all applications are about ‘horse racing, horse racing’ and they ‘don’t regard’ the community. They have ‘denied the rights of the community’. There is a lack of sports grounds and council even had to hire ‘independent consultants’ to work out what sporting grounds are needed. The MRC has ‘done nothing but given grief to the community’. The lease ‘has expired’ and hasn’t been ‘renewed for years’; the Auditor General delivered his report and ‘caulfield racecourse does not seem to care’. Council ‘doesn’t get a cent from huge earnings of Caulfield racecourse’ in fact they pay reduced rates.

MAGEE: said that the 2008 report from the parliamentary committee was ‘scathing’ and so was the VEAC report and then the Auditor General’s report. A year down the track and none of his recommendations ‘are yet to be implemented’. Stated that ‘in his heart’ he thought there would be ‘changes’ and that the new Minister would do her best to make things change. Said that the motion means that council is ‘moving forward’ and they can see if there is anyone who is trying to ‘stop us’. The MRC do ‘look after the racecourse very well’ and is one of the best courses in the world and council wants racing to stay but they also want to ‘share the ground’.

MOTION PUT. ONLY COUNCILLOR TO VOTE AGAINST – SOUNNESS

COMMENTS

  • We commend Cr Sounness for being the only councillor to take the officer’s report to task – however mildly and for his attempt to refer to ‘planning law’ rather than grandstanding.
  • This is a planning application, yet the only comment made in relation to planning was the dubious claim about ‘visual amenity’. For a council that continually rams down residents’ throats the idea that ‘planning law’ must apply – this so called ‘debate’ illustrates how little ‘planning law’ has been dredged up to support the officer’s recommendation and the subsequent motion. In our view, councillors, for whatever reason are going through the motions, doing as they are told, and literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to find anything of substance to say.
  • Question – why has council waited for nearly a decade before moving the motion to seek permission for sporting fields? Surely this could have been done eons ago?
  • Musical chairs on Esakoff, Hyams, and Lipshutz’s ‘conflict of interest’ continues. When it suits, there is a conflict of interest. When it doesn’t suit, this goes out the window! Consistency is definitely not a strong point within council!
  • If the Open Space Strategy is so important, then where was council when it either granted permits, or caved in, over the removal of fences, access, leases, financial payments, etc – not to mention the C60, outdoor screen, cinema, etc. etc.
  • In typical contradictory manner, council now seeks permission and then a permit to create six sporting fields – without knowing the cost. Funnily enough other items on the agenda included the arguments that council can’t do something because they either haven’t got the money and don’t know the cost so the accepted recommendation was the usual – ‘let’s do nothing’ (ie pavilions, rose gardens, depot removal from Caulfield Park).

WATCH THE VIDEO FROM ‘THE AGE – DOMAIN’. IT SAYS IT ALL!

http://www.domain.com.au/news/elderly-couple-refuse-to-sell-as-developers-lay-claim-on-mckinnon-culdesac-20151013-gk7kw5/

CLICK TO ENLARGE

claire

The skullduggery that has gone on over Frogmore and the Jewish Care aged care facility is literally scandalous. A permit application is currently waiting to be decided. It proposes to remove 88 of the 92 trees on site. Well, those trees no longer exist!

This says plenty about this council and its attitude to the environment. With no tree register and no will to stop moonscaping of sites, this is the result. We are also confident that council will not seek to impose any fine on Jewish Care for removing trees under the 12 months period stated in the planning scheme. We remind readers that the heritage report nominated 4 trees as having ‘significant’ status and to be given heritage status themselves.

It is quite appalling that this can happen. But since it is Glen Eira council, where profit and vested interests are far more important than environment, no-one should be surprised – merely outraged!

This Nearmap shot is dated 13 September 2015 – three weeks ago. They sure move fast!

wahgoo spetember 2015

The old saying of Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics depicts perfectly the spin department of Glen Eira. Definitions are non-existent and methodologies as to how various figures are derived remains unexplained. The spin doctors simply publish a figure with some neat ambiguous statement and these are purported to represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Far from it.

Several recent examples come from a Media Release and a sentence from last week’s Caulfield Leader (and repeated in a story this week)– “the tribunal (ie VCAT) approved 489 dwellings the council initially refused”(Caulfield Leader – page 9). The Media Release stated – “During the 2014-15 financial year, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) approved 489 dwellings that Glen Eira City Council had refused” (July 2015). What these quotes and figures don’t reveal is:

  • How many of these purported 489 dwellings were the result of council no longer opposing a permit due to the developer submitting an amended application?
  • How many of these cases didn’t make it to a full hearing but were ‘mediated’ or were part of a ‘directions hearing’ at which council caved in?
  • Thus, is the figure of 489 based simply on ‘initial’ rejection or rejections that stood firm and were taken to VCAT for a full hearing and subsequent decision?

Much more significant, is the question of WHY VCAT granted permits for any of these supposedly refused applications? Over the past few months we have featured several VCAT decisions where the members have highlighted a litany of council stuff-ups and lack of adequate representation at the hearings. Time and again the public record of the decision shows that Council reps show up and are either ill-prepared, often provide spurious arguments, or are basically hamstrung by the Planning Scheme itself. We are in no way suggesting that VCAT is without fault and that the legislation governing this body is adequate. What we are alleging is that Council should start fixing its own house of horrors instead of continually and persistently resorting to the blame game where VCAT is portrayed as the sole villain.

To justify our claims, we’ve taken the time to go through every single published VCAT decision for the past financial year. Council claims 489 dwellings were approved. Our total is 288! (see below). Of these decisions however, we urge residents to carefully consider the comments made by the members and to note:

  • Conditions set by council that are contradictory or simply nonsensical
  • The lack of protection afforded by the planning scheme itself
  • Policies that expired in 2007 and have never been updated
  • And far too often, the lack of competence by council itself

All of this however begs the essential question. If council is finding that its claims are repeatedly knocked back by VCAT, then why, oh why, has there not been any attempt to ‘fix up’ the gaping holes in the planning scheme? Why, oh why, will there not be a planning scheme review for 6 or 7 years? And why oh why do our councillors continue to stand idly by and accept this situation?

Here’s the evidence. Hearing dates are provided together with address, proposal, and members’ comments. For ease of reading, we’ve uploaded a pdf version HERE  as well as the png images below –

35 Murray Road_Page_135 Murray Road_Page_235 Murray Road_Page_3

A planning application for the demolished Frogmore site is now public. It proposes a 120 bed aged care facility. The site is just under 8000 square metres, yet according to the plans is NOT big enough to ensure that all aspects of the requirements for the Neighbourhood Residential Zone are met. Even worse is that dozens upon dozens of healthy trees are to be removed. Here are some of the proposals –

  • Of the 92 trees on site, Jewish Care wants to remove 88
  • Only 38 car parking spots will be provided on site (plus 2 ‘drop off’ sites). This is despite the fact that the proposal states – “ Total number of staff is expected to be around 100 Full Time Equivalent (FTE), while the maximum number of staff on duty at peak times is projected to be around 45 people”.
  • Failure to reach the required ‘permeability’ requirements is stated to be a ‘minor variation’, as is site coverage. Incredible for 8000 square metres of land!

The plans themselves are incredibly short on detail such as providing actual dimensions, whilst the so called traffic report can be challenged time and time again. What did catch our attention is this gem from the arborist’s report – Development changes the use of an area, adding buildings, infrastructure and people to the landscape. This increases the potential for trees to cause damage to people and property. Therefore, trees that are structurally poor or that have a short life expectancy are generally unsuitable for retention on development sites.

So, this is justification for removing 88 trees – many of which are ‘significant’. Here is the list of trees to be removed. Please note the number that even the developer’s arborist sees as ‘healthy’ and of ‘high significance’. Of course, with a council that has no tree protection policies and facilitates as much moon-scaping as possible, the applicant is definitely on solid ground.

What will be fascinating is:

  • Will Magee be present at voting time? Will the ‘decision’ deliberately be delayed so that Magee in all likelihood will no longer be mayor and thus cannot use his vote twice as Pilling did?
  • Will Esakoff have ‘resolved’ her conflict of interest issues and her ‘close relative’ have found a place in the meantime?
  • And has the decision already been made and this will end up at VCAT – due to objectors and not council decision?

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Pages from 1_Wahgoo_Road_Carnegie_Vic_3163_-_Advertised_Documents_Page_1Pages from 1_Wahgoo_Road_Carnegie_Vic_3163_-_Advertised_Documents_Page_2

Pages from 1_Wahgoo_Road_Carnegie_Vic_3163_-_Advertised_Documents_Page_3

« Previous PageNext Page »