GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 4, 2015

Save Glen Eira!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments

The cry from residents should not simply be ‘save East Bentleigh’, but rather ‘Save Glen Eira’. Street after street is being ravaged and not only in the so-called ‘growth zones’ or in the major activity centres. Our alleged 80% ‘protected zones’ of Neighbourhood Residential Zones (NRZ1) are equally at risk of seeing the doubling of dwellings with resultant impacts on amenity, traffic, infrastructure, and open space.

Council clings to the myth that the zones (secretly introduced) have got nothing to do with this onslaught – that it is all the result of a statewide building boom. What is happening in Glen Eira has everything to do with the new zones and the appalling lack of ‘protection’ contained within the Planning Scheme. When other councils can do their homework and have structure plans, design and development overlays that mean something, parking precinct plans, tree protection clauses, development contribution levies for drainage, and our council refuses to even entertain such tools, then there is something drastically wrong.

Victoria in Future 2014 (a government ‘predictor’ of housing needs) asserted that from 2011 to 2031 Glen Eira households will increase by another 10,000. That’s roughly 500 new dwellings per year. Glen Eira in the past 11 months has had roughly 2400 new dwellings approved – with still a month to go according to the Planning Permit Activity Reports from government. Thanks to the new zones and an outdated and woeful planning scheme, Glen Eira is in the top ranks of handing developers carte blanche to build and build and build with barely an impediment to mega profits. The refusal to revisit, amend, and tighten the Planning Scheme has got nothing to do with the ‘building boom’ and everything to do with a culture that is utterly pro-development with little concern for residential, environmental and social amenity of residents. How any council can operate efficiently when its housing strategy is based on data from 1996, and planning scheme reviews are delayed and delayed, residents should start asking why? And how well our 9 councillors are doing their jobs in representing their constituents.

Below we feature applications that have come in over the past two months and have not as yet been decided by council (a token few have been ‘refused’ and another couple are for amended permits). Given council’s and VCAT’s ‘generosity’ to developers, we anticipate that 95 to 98% of these applications will get the nod. Please note:

The scale of development due to the zoning
The fact that it is basically the residential ‘growth areas’ that are being inundated and not the Commercial zones which council claims will take the majority of development
A planning register that is not worthy of that name since what does ‘multi-unit development’ actually mean? Is this for 10 units, 20 units, or 100 units? Surely it is incumbent on council to provide full details (as demanded by legislation) in its online planning register?
East Bentleigh, McKinnon, Murrumbeena, Ormond aren’t even Major Activity Centres – yet they are being over-developed and ruined – again thanks to the zoning!
The list below does not include the literally hundreds upon hundreds of applications for 2 storey attached dwellings in quiet residential streets!

5-9 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 36 dwellings, reduction in visitor parking

86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (GRZ2) Buildings and works (SBO) Reduction in the standard car parking requirement (52.06)

10 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

9 & 9A Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – four storey building comprising 20 apartments

331-333 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 26 dwellings, no visitor car parking

455 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Proposed apartment complex & shop (C1Z)

6-8 Blair Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey apartment building above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking) (RGZ1)

21-25 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey residential building comprising 45 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking)

322-328A Centre Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi storey (max 9 levels), mixed use development comprising basement car park (62 spaces), ground floor retial and residential development (C1Z)

20 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi level residential unit building (RGZ1)

37-39 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – RGZ – Construction of more than two dwellings on the land (RGZ1)

14-14A Vickery Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of 10 x 2 bedroom townhouses, dispensation 2 vsitor car parking spaces

77 Robert Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking to comprise of sixteen (16) dwellings

27-29 Nicholson Street & 20 Hamilton Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising of five (5) units, construction of a two (2) storey building comprising of five (5) units and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirements – Amendment

52 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed apartment complex with basement (GRZ1)

51 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 & 670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Use of the land for accomodation where the ground floor frontages excced 2 metres and building and works in a Commerical 1 zone, construction of a residential building in the General Residential Zone, reduction of car parking under Clause 52.06, waiver of on-site loading facilities under Clause 52.07, removal of an easement under Clause 52.02 (GRZ1)

9 Francesco Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of six (6) double storey attached dwellings – Amended

2 John Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed three storey of residential apartment building comprised of 12 units with basement car parking

48-50 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of ten (10) attached dwellings (4 double storey dwellings and 6 three storey dwellings)

46 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction to the land for four (4) dwellings

12-14 Quinns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to 30 dwellings

18 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction of four (4) three-storey dwellings above basement car parking

16-18 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 9 x 3 storey townhouses

3 Malacca Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Development of the land with three dwellings

151 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Proposed shop and 3 apartments

27 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – seven (7) double storey

29 and 31 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – three (3) storey building above basement carparking comprising of twenty-one (21) dwellings

193-195 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of two shops and up to twelve (12) dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiving of the loading bay requirement – amended

245 Jasper Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – four (4) double storey

10-12 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 21 dwellings (refusal)

24 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 7 dwellings

17 Rosella Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

7 Toward Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 17 apartments with basement car parking for 19 cars

8 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising fourteen (14) residential apartments above a basement car park – Amended

3-5 Adelaide Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

600-604 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Demolition of the existing building and construction of new six storey building for use at the ground level for retail purposes (shop) and the upper levels for residential apartments with 76 car spaces and 26 bicycle spaces. Waiver of the on site loading bay requirement and reduction in the statutory requirement for on site car parking associated with the residential visitors and shop. (C1Z)

34 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Multi-dwelling development (building and works) (GRZ1)

13 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of five (5) dwellings (2 double storey and 3 three storey)

534-538 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building for use as 2 shops and 20 dwellings, a reduction of standard car parking requirements associated with the shops and waiver of loading bay requirements – amended

24-26 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of visitor car parking requirements

235 Grange Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to eleven (11) dwellings and alterations to access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1

630-632 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building comprising of two ground floor shops and fourteen dwellings, waiving of loading bay requirements and a reduction in car parking requirements – Amended

20 Wheeler Street ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of eight (8) double-storey dwellings and a basement car park – refusal

23-25 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construct a three storey development comprising 26 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor)

19-21 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of a multi unit residential development and a reduction in the provision of car parking (GRZ1)

2 and 2A James Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 316 – Construction of six (6) three storey dwellings and a reduction in the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 (refusal)

143-147 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 -Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 30 dwellings above a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit)

July 3, 2015

Enough Is Enough!

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

Bentleigh East high rise development hangs on Glen Eira Council’s rezone vote

Troels Sommerville
Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
July 03, 2015 12:00AM

Rodney Andonopoulos is worried a new development at Virginia Park, Bentleigh East, will cause traffic chaos around the neighbourhood. Picture: Valeriu Campan

HUNDREDS of objections to a rezoning proposal to allow for a high-rise, high density development have been filling Glen Eira Council’s mailboxes.

And Mayor, Cr Jim Magee said he expected “a gallery filled with protesters and placards” at the next council meeting.

The large development complex planned forBentleigh East’s Virginia Park, hangs on a crucial rezoning vote at the July 21 meeting.However, speaking on behalf of developer Gillon Group, one of the project’s development managers, Adam Brix from Brix Property Group, said there would be 1250 houses and not 4000 as objectors have been printing on distributed flyers.

Mr Brix said an engineers report, commissioned by the developer, worked on “an absolute maximum development scenario” when investigating services in the area.

That report, which is on exhibition as part of the rezoning process, assumed that the site would be developed for 12,000 square metres of retail floor space and 4,462 residential dwellings.

“The dwellings numbers referred to in the infrastructure report should not be construed as what is intended to be developed,” Mr Brix said.

But community members, who fear the developer would build as close to the maximum capacity as possible, have submitted more than 250 objections already and more were expected, Cr Magee said.

Councillors must make a decision on rezoning the estate from Commercial 1 and 2 to Commercial 1 which would allow for the residential and shopping centre development, by either recommending it to an independent panel or voting against a rezone.

It can’t simply urge the planning minister to approve because of the community objection.

Cr Magee said the said the community response had been “one of the most vocal” in his time on council.

“It’s very, very rare that we see a response like this and it just shows how protective the residents are of their suburb,” Cr Magee said.

“And I suspect come the meeting we will see the gallery filled with protesters and placards like they used to be.”

There is also a Facebook group opposed to the development.

PS: OFF TOPIC BUT OF INTEREST TO RESIDENTS. FROM YESTERDAY’S GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

July 1, 2015

More On Virginia Estate

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

June 30, 2015

Sound Familiar?

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

Melbourne City Council ‘slow’ and ‘bureaucratic’: internal review

Date: June 29, 2015 – 7:03PM

Aisha Dow

“Slow” and “bureaucratic” is how Melbourne City Council has been described in an unflattering internal review, which has criticised ageing senior leaders for not spending enough time looking at the big picture.

In a document that flags concerns Melbourne could lose its liveable-city status, it was found the municipality is at the “crossroads of either stagnating or embarking on next wave of change”.

The council’s five long-serving directors, who had been in the same job for between five to 19 years, were singled out for failing to work as a team in the report chaired by former Brisbane City Council chief executive Jude Munro.

“Directors are relatively senior in age, lengthy in tenure, male-dominated and lacking in ethnic diversity,” the review said. “They are seen to focus on operational issues to the marked detriment of leading strategic approaches.”

Questions were also raised about the efficiency of the council.

A number of external groups told the review that dealing with council was “bureaucratic” and “slow”, while finding the right person to deal with could be difficult.

Within the council, there were problems getting staff from different departments to work together. “For example, it can take up to six employees, two forms and two weeks to assign an employee to a project,” the review said.

And most staff were frustrated with the IT systems, which were described as “antiquated” and behind”. Many employees were working manually where it would be more efficient to work electronically or automatically.

However it was also noted the majority of employees had a strong passion for Melbourne and were willing to work long hours “for a city they love”.

The council’s new chief executive, Ben Rimmer, commissioned and published the review. He said most large government organisations would find that it “takes them too long to make decisions”, but the council was committed to improving this.

“We’ve had a good hard look at ourselves,” the said. “There are some areas that we want to review I am confident that we can review quite rapidly.”

A 32-page action plan has already been produced to address the problems raised.

It includes a pledge to update council’s 10-year community plan “Future Melbourne”, which is about seven years old, and to improve succession and retirement planning.

Four of Melbourne top directors have worked at the council for more than a decade. Renowned urban planner Rob Adams is the longest serving, having been at the municipality for almost 30 years.

Mr Rimmer said while it was good “as a general rule” to have some change in the management team for new perspectives and ideas, the wealth of experience and knowledge long-serving staff brought was also valued.

The review’s chair, Jude Munro, said there was always a risk that when people were in the same role for a long time they could “become used to working in a certain way”.

“Our report was talking about greater teamwork and collaboration and their role shifting to have better focus on planning for their organisation”.

Victoria’s capital is facing a period of rapid change, with the population of the inner-city set to almost double – from 122,000 people to 205,000 by 2031.

There will be increasing competition to win the Economist Intelligence Unit’s most-liveable city accolade and the review warned the loss of this crown would affect Melbourne’s ability to attract talent and investment.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-city-council-slow-and-bureaucratic-internal-review-20150629-gi0rh4.html

June 26, 2015

Virginia Estate: Gillonspeak.

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[8] Comments

Here is a summary of the developer’s ‘presentation’ to residents at the recent Planning Conference.

ROB MILNER: said that he ‘understands that a lot of you just don’t want change’ (audience – howls of derision). ‘There will be change’ at Virginia Park ‘regardless’. Conceded that he couldn’t on the night answer everyone’s points or convince them otherwise but wanted people to ‘understand’ the plans in ‘proper context’. Said that change ‘will happen regardless of tonight’. Originally land was industrial with about 4000 workers as cigarette producers. ‘It had to move on, it had to change’ and became ‘more of a business environment’. Claimed that now it’s an employment centre for ‘many people’ under 30. Also about 1900 cars on the site. Claimed that the ‘reality’ is that it’s a ‘struggle to keep’ the jobs there. If things don’t change then ‘there would be a gradual decline of the jobs’ in part because larger sites and ‘cheaper land’ becomes available on the ‘outer fringe’ of Melbourne. So the jobs ‘that people around here’ are enjoying will start to ‘evaporate’. Question is ‘what change is appropriate’ and not ‘should there be change’.

In response to the ‘concerns’ expressed about notification, claimed that Gillon Group ‘hand delivered 12,000 notices’ about the forum held by the group. Meetings were in evening and morning and the ‘turnout’ was about 50 – 60 people. Said that there is not attempt to ‘hide this’ and that they ‘have gone out of their way’ to inform people. Claimed that the figure of 4,500 dwellings was part of a ‘piece of work’ that was done to ‘try and understand’ the ‘infrastructure’ needs of the site. They aren’t ‘applying for 4000 dwellings’ but only ‘1,250’ dwellings ‘as a maximum’. Went on to say that simply because there is a plan about 10 storeys it’s not ‘like a jug that you fill up with water’. Thus with only 1250 dwellings you ‘couldn’t possibly build’ to the ‘envelope’ that’s been approved. What will happen is that it’s ‘taken to the market’ and there is ‘interest’ or there isn’t ‘interest’ and there will be ‘something less than 1200’. Gillon is therefore a ‘company’ realising ‘change has to occur’ and is looking at Government policy that asks for the development of ‘mixed use centres’ and try to build ‘local public transport’ like getting ‘better bus services in this area’. Since Glen Eira was first out of the blocks with the zones, that protected ‘vast areas’ of land and left only ‘very small pockets’ to develop and contribute to ‘a more diverse housing stock’. Gillon takes this and believes there should be a ‘mix of uses’ that ‘tries to retain a lot of the white collar jobs’ and a ‘greater range of services’ enjoyed by the neighbourhood plus ‘some different housing opportunities’.

On ‘business impact’ said that there would come a time when ‘more evidence is brought to bear’. Said that Carnegie is ‘interesting’ because they ‘brought in’ a huge 5000 square metre supermarket ‘alongside the existing one’ plus there’s an Aldi. And ‘the centre probably thrived for it’. It’s these supermarkets that ‘are saying to us’ that East Bentleigh is ‘one of the poorest served’ areas for supermarkets and they want to build on Virginia Estate. Said that Gillon is doing things in ‘reverse’ because they’ve got ‘a very large employment base on the site’ even before ‘we start’ who have ‘poor access to convenience services’. This group will ‘benefit’. Their ‘advice’ is that they are in an area that has the least supermarket floorspace in the ‘whole of Melbourne’. They used a ‘reputable’ research company and retailers are telling them that the findings are ‘on the mark’. Admitted that ‘there has never been’ any shopping centre development that hasn’t had ‘some impact’ on its neighbouring centres but ‘it’s the degree’ of the impact that is the ‘issue’ and when East Bentleigh will only have a 9.1% impact then that’s within the norm of other developments. (interjections from audience with statements that impact is more like 25%).

Gillon applied for traffic lights on South Drive/East Boundary Road. Currently the area is ‘not a safe environment’ for cars trying to ‘get in and out’ of the Park. It can’t be a ‘do nothing’ situation so the ‘set of lights’ will be a ‘positive’. The VicRoads ‘issue is not to suggest that the site is snap frozen’. Gillon will ‘work through with’ VicRoads because there is ‘a capacity’ to ‘accommodate the growth’. Their concern is to ‘improve safety’. The other concern is PTV (Public Transport Victoria). Said there’s GESAC nearby which is a ‘major facility’ for the community and taken together with the employment at Virginia Park there is the ‘basic ingredients’ for the ’20 minute neighbourhood’ of Plan melbourne and ‘all that is missing is the residential’. The PTV isnt’ saying that there shouldn’t be development but their concern is about ‘putting in a bus stop’. Said ‘we can’t build a railway, can’t build a tram’ but there is the opportunity for ‘better public transport’.

On open space ‘we had long discussion with Council’ and during these discussions Council ‘lifted’ its open space levy to 5.7%. ‘They asked us could we please provide a link’ between Marlborough Reserve & Virginia Park and ‘the land at number 1 Barrington’. Council’s open space strategy defines this part of Glen Eira as ‘one of the better served’ locations with open space and that’s ‘why they are asking us for money rather than land’. ‘It’s their choice’ and if ‘approved it’s for you to approach council and debate that point’. ‘We’re merely responding to the direction we’ve been asked to follow’. The money they give will go ‘towards the enhancement of open space’.

Said that traffic ‘will not be on local streets’ because ‘there won’t be any access to the site’ apart from what already exists. All traffic will go onto East Boundary Road and if people live there then they have to accept that traffic ‘will grow’ since it’s a major arterial road.

On infrastructure said that water does move down ‘through that area’ into Barrington Street. Said there’s an ‘overland flow’ that has ‘been there since creation’. Development creates the ‘oppolrtunity to fix the problem’ and not create new ones. They’ve done the research in order to understand the ‘capacity’ and the movement of water (that’s why the 4000 dwellings scenario) so that the ‘net result’ will be to ‘find a solution’. Said that there ‘should not be a net increase’ and there ‘should be a net improvement’ in regard to water flow onto neighbouring properties.

They aren’t ‘proposing to build a school’ but it is an issue. Said that the number of children living on the site will be the result of the ‘housing mix’ and the number of dwellings and is not an issue that is unique to East Bentleigh. With town houses they are ‘looking at’ numbers of two to 2.5 people per dwelling. If they get to 1200 dwellings then that means 2,500 people.

Finished by saying that Gillon believes they are bringing the ‘opportunity’ for people to ‘walk to convenience shops’ and which ‘supplement the services’ that are already there. They are also ‘protecting and trying to create more jobs’ for people ‘in this local area’. Said that ‘we are trying to protect the character of your area’. The site is large and ‘we’re trying to give it a residential character’ to match the surrounds. They ‘provide buffers’ on boundaries and ‘support’ aims for ‘improved transport’ and ‘trying to make’ the roads ‘safer’. Gillon thinks ‘we have something worth considering’.

Note: people then wanted to ask questions and someone called out ‘are you doing it for profit as well?’ Pilling didn’t allow questions, explained when the agenda would come out and closed the meeting.

June 23, 2015

The People Speak: Virginia Estate

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning
[17] Comments

PS: a new Facebook page has just started up opposing the Virginia Estate development. We have provided a link to this site via our Blogroll. The URL is – https://www.facebook.com/groups/453771051463638/ /

Last night’s planning conference for the Virginia Estate development was jam packed with outraged residents and traders. Pilling chaired the meeting. What came through loudly and clearly was:

Residents’ total dissatisfaction with council’s ‘communication’. Many stated that they did not receive notification, had no idea this was happening, and definitely had no idea that ‘permission’ had been granted for 10 storey developments in 2011.
Those who did receive formal letters also complained bitterly that the jargon was incomprehensible – ie one resident who had lived nearby for 30 plus years simply said – ‘oh well, it’s already commercial from the time of W.D & H.O Wills, so this is just more commercial.’ The idea of ‘residential’ did not enter his mind. Other residents were not so forgiving and labelled the notices as ‘misleading’ and ‘non-transparent’.
The developer’s retail impact statement was declared suspect by both the Carnegie Traders and the Bentleigh Traders Association.
Residents cited numerous objections – ie. Virginia Estate is ‘landlocked’ with no transport to speak of, alongside residential dwellings, with already choked major arterial roads. Other comments focused on what impact another 5000 residents would have on local schools that are already bursting at the seams. Infrastructure, open space and lack of sporting grounds were also noted.
Once again the chair (Pilling) resorted to the common Glen Eira tactic of trying to shut down one very informed speaker to the loud chorus from the audience of ‘let her speak’. It should also be noted that when the developer then rose and spoke there was no opportunity for residents to ask him questions since Pilling then closed the meeting!

SOME GENERAL COMMENTS

Throughout the ‘introduction’ to the amendment by both Pilling and council planner (Rocky Camera) there was no mention of:

Removal of third party objection rights
The overall number of proposed dwellings – ie Camera insisted that the amendment covered only 1200 dwellings without revealing the significant fact that 1200 was only for PRECINCT 1. Precinct 2, 3 and 4 were still to come. This is deliberately misleading and devious.
Pilling stated that ‘no decision’ had as yet been made. No ‘formal’ decision may have as yet occurred , but the developer revealed that it was council which asked for the 20m link of open space and the 5.7% cash open space levy instead of a land contribution of any significance. Meetings between the developer and council had been ongoing for a long period of time as well.

Finally, we wish to inform residents of how this council operates. When it wants, it can initiate ‘extensive community consultation’ at ratepayers’ cost. The best example of this, is the travesty that occurred with the removal of the Caulfield Park conservatory. There were 2 public consultations. When council did not get the results it was seeking there was a last ditch effort that involved:

The printing of glossy brochures and a ‘survey’ which was distributed to 3,247 properties around Caulfield Park. (Minutes of 24^th September 2013) at a cost of over $14,000 and consultant fees which would clearly make this amount much greater.

In contrast Amendment C75 which set up the platform for the current rezoning only had 500 properties notified. The current proposal has had 638 according to the figures cited last night. When there are literally thousands of thousands of homes impacted by this amendment, 638 notifications written in planning jargon, is a drop in the ocean. Residents should be querying not so much the strategies adopted by council, but asking what are the vested interests behind such a strategy. It is obvious that the intent was to keep residents as ignorant and as quiet as possible! This is ‘consultation’, Glen Eira style!

June 22, 2015

Virginia Estate History

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

As with the Caulfield Village, the history of Virginia Estate goes back many years. The processes involved are subtle, incremental, and ultimately identical – namely:

Rezoning to allow high density development
Removal of third party objection rights via Incorporated/Development Plans

The First Amendment

On the 4^th November 2009, council first considered the question of rezoning Virginia Estate from Industrial to Business 2 and Business 3 – thus allowing for residential development to occur. The proposed amendment also introduced the euphemistically entitled ‘Development Plan Overlay’. This set the scene for 10 storey development in the centre of Virginia Estate.

As to the purpose of the amendment, the officer’s report stated:

The amendment seeks to facilitate a shift from traditional heavy industrial and warehouse uses, to technology based industries and office uses. It will also enable a limited amount of retail, directly related to the uses on the site, to meet the needs of tenants.

The word residential did not appear once in this report or the public notice. Conclusion? Devious, deceptive, and not stating up front in clear, precise language exactly what this amendment would mean.

The resolution read:

Crs Hyams/Magee

That this item be deferred to the Ordinary Council Meeting of November 24 to allow Council to receive more detail.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously (Penhalluriack declared a conflict of interest)

Meeting of 24^th November 2009

No ‘more detail’ was provided in the officer’s report this time around and incredibly placed last (Item 8.17) in a long, long agenda list. Given that the resolution stated that it was ‘Council’ (with a Capital ‘C’) to receive this additional ‘detail’, then this additional ‘detail’ should have been included in the officer’s report. It wasn’t. Instead the November 24^th version was identical, word for word, with the 4^th November effort. Thus once again, decisions are made on the basis of information with-held from the public, and the public record and decided behind closed doors.

Crs Hyams/Magee

That Council

Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C75.
Exhibit the amendment no earlier than January 27 2010.

Meeting of 8^th June 2010

The amendment (following advertising) was considered again. No submissions were published and officer comments were largely supportive of the amendment.

Euphemisms continued as per the following:

Proposal – Amendment C75 proposes to rezone the Virginia Park ‘industrial’ estate in East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East to a Business 2 and 3 Zone to facilitate commercial redevelopment.

14 submissions were submitted. No detail given as to how many opposed the amendment and how many supported the amendment. The resulting decision was to send off to a panel.

Meeting of 15^th March 2011 & The Panel Report

The following paragraph from the Planning Panel report is significant in that it mirrors exactly what happened with the C60 version(s) of the Incorporated Plan – ie. residents were not privy to the ‘negotiations’ taking place between the developer and council and hence their objections were based on what had been advertised and NOT what was now before the panel. Further, since none of the submitters attended the panel hearing, presumably believing that their submissions addressed what was advertised, they were not provided with the time, or the opportunity, to challenge the changes. One must seriously question whether ‘natural justice’ had been afforded to objectors.

A schedule to the DPO was exhibited with the Amendment. Council submitted a revised schedule on 24 August 2010 and Mr Scally on behalf of the proponent tabled a tracked changes version of the schedule at the hearing. It is understood this version followed further discussion between Council and the proponent before the hearing. The blue text is the further changes proposed by Council and the red text is the further changes proposed by the proponent. It is proposed to use this version as the working document in this report

The council resolution stated:

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That Council:

Adopts Amendment C75 in the form recommended by the IndependentPanel with the following change:

(a) The exhibited setback of 8 metres to the southern boundary (Virginia Reserve Interface Precinct) and eastern boundaries (Third Avenue Precinct) is adopted.

Does not forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planningfor approval until the Gillon Group enters into a Section 173 agreementwith Council for the provision of infrastructure works.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

CURRENTLY

As we’ve stated previously, resolutions mean nothing in Glen Eira. Here was a decision regarding setbacks and now the amendment wishes to reduce this setback. No Section 173 agreement has been made public.

CONCLUSION

Residents should ask themselves:

Why does this council continually agree to remove resident third party objection rights?
Why does this council continually cave-in and meet the vast majority of developer demands?
Why does this council continually fail to advertise and inform widely on such important issues?
Why should residents have any faith that the projected 4,600+ dwellings is the final figure, given the experience of C60?

June 18, 2015

Virginia Estate Planning Conference

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

Over the past 4 weeks we have received numerous emails from residents complaining that they know nothing about the proposed rezoning of Virginia Estate and where they can find information. This is a damning indictment of council’s failure to not only live up to its charter and Community Plan in ‘ensuring’ community input into development, but we would go further and allege that this is all part of the culture of this council – ie the less people know what is going on, then the better from the point of view of ramming things through. God forbid, there should be extensive community involvement!

Council has spent tens upon tens of thousands of dollars upgrading its website. We challenge anyone to find any ‘useful’, coherent information on the plans for Virginia Estate. It’s not listed under ‘Major Projects’ (in fact, nothing is at the time of writing). Under ‘Public Notices’ one would have to know which amendment number refers to the Virginia Estate proposal. In other words, users have to click on every single amendment listed. Not only is this woeful website design that a 4 year old could do better, but it makes things as difficult and time consuming as possible for people.

Once found as Amendment C135 residents are overjoyed to find the following ‘explanation’

(The Amendment proposes to rezone part of the land to Commercial 1 to enable an integrated mixed use development over the entire site and amends Schedule 2 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO2) to enable a broader mix of uses across the site)

Accurate? Of course! Informative? Never! How many residents really know what Schedule 2 is and means? How many know what the ramifications of rezoning to C1Z means? And as for Development Plan Overlay, that belongs in the stratosphere 0f total incomprehension for most people. There is absolutely no excuse why Council can place ad after ad in the Leader for GESAC, (at what cost?) and only one notice about Virginia Estate which would be the largest single development in the municipality’s history. Don’t people deserve to know what is really going on and what it could potentially mean?

Compare this with Bayside and the documentation that accompanies their proposals – ie actual documents online; ‘have your say’ available, and most importantly, a PLAIN ENGLISH EXPLANATION of what is proposed AND WHY! http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/living_in_bayside/amendment_C139_bayside_drainage_development_contributions_plan.htm

The same can be said for Boroondara and countless others – http://boroondara.vic.gov.au/your_council/building-planning/strategic-planning/amendments/amendment-c178-introducing-permanent-heritage-overlays

Even typing the word ‘amendment’ into council’s search engine brings up a page of gobbledygook – ie a list of amendments. Click on any one, and all that comes up is the ‘public notice’ published in the Leader. Informative? Conducive to resident involvement? No way!

We are now living in the age of social media. Glen Eira Council still belongs in the dark ages. We also believe that the substandard website is nothing more than the physical manifestation of this culture which is determined to carry on business as if residents don’t matter, shouldn’t know, and definitely not be given the best chance of becoming involved and voicing their opinion(s). Yes, council adheres to the legislation – at the literal and minimal level. It will not go one step further in ensuring that people know exactly what is going on.

How much more incompetence, sub-standard performance, and anti-community behaviour, will this set of 9 councillors allow? When will they exert their legal muscle and say ‘enough is enough’?

We urge as many residents as possible to attend Monday night and for once, let us hear the community – loud and clear!

June 16, 2015

Frogmore: Hello Bulldozers!

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

Before we report on the farce that occurred at last Tuesday night’s council meeting we wish to make the following comments and ask residents to carefully consider what occurred and the questions raised.

Why is it that in Glen Eira resolutions mean bugger all – that they can be ignored, changed, forgotten about, and reneged upon at will, or presumably at the behest of vested interests? Not for the first time have those same councillors (Lipshutz, Hyams and Pilling) totally ignored resident views and aspirations. It is significant that not one single councillor mentioned the fact that a petition of near a thousand signatures was tabled seeking to preserve Frogmore, nor that over 300 submissions came in supporting the amendment for a heritage overlay.

We also find it extraordinary that at the very last moment both Delahunty and Esakoff just happened to discover that they’ve got a conflict of interest. We remind readers that this conflict did not exist when both voted to go to Heritage Victoria and then to draw up the amendment a few short months ago. Surely aged relations couldn’t have aged that rapidly to suddenly find themselves in need of an aged care facility that will take at the very least two years to be operational? We certainly anticipate plenty of objections once the plans are submitted and people trot off to VCAT so it is likely to be even longer than two years.

The result is that 3 councillors – a minority – decided what happens in Glen Eira. That isn’t ‘representative government’ and nor is it listening to the community. Just as with the C60, residents are being duped and dudded and repeatedly ignored.

And as always, the level of argument is abysmal. How on earth Okotel can speak about costs, and then in the very next sentence ask for 3 additional heritage reports, is mind numbing. Or more to the point, how all her arguments suggest opposition to going to the panel and then to vote in favour of going to a panel is equally mind numbing.

For a council that repeats ad nauseum that it is ‘planning law’ and ‘policy’ that determines decisions, ‘planning law’ fails to get a mention in the ‘debate’. Not one word on ‘planning law’ from councillors and not one word from the officer’s report. Instead it’s all smoke and mirrors and pure unadulterated gibberish and misrepresentation of the facts – as so clearly pointed out by the National Trust (see link below). Further, how dare Hyams and Okotel argue that cost should be the determinant of whether or not something goes to a panel, or (worse) what is financially ‘viable’ for the prospective developer. Even here, Hyams’ claims are far from the truth when he asserts that ONLY a 120 bed facility is worthwhile for the developer. In Glen Eira there are currently plenty of aged care facilities that offer far less than 120 beds and have managed to stay in operation for eons – eg: Estia Health Bentleigh has 45 beds; Claremont Terrace has 94 beds; Lovell House has 40 beds; Victoria by the Park has 70 beds; Hammond Care has 60 beds and Montgomery has 30 beds and there are plenty of others in this category.

We might also quibble with Hyams’ assertion that the Churches of Christ were forced to sell because 60 mere beds is ‘not viable’. In the first place, the current owners are based in Queensland. They only have 3 aged care premises in Melbourne and are currently looking to invest far more heavily in their own home state as their Annual Reports and corporate strategy documents indicate. Perhaps it’s simply the old adage of ‘charity begins at home’ – ie Queensland – and not because a 60 bed home that has been in existence for decades is suddenly going to the wall?

All of this leads us to ask these fair and reasonable questions:

Is it coincidence that Delahunty and Esakoff suddenly discovered a conflict of interest? Or is their ‘maybe’ conflict nothing more than a political shirking of the necessity for a vote?
Have some of these councillors learnt their lesson about Planning Panels and Heritage – ie remember the Esakoff Seaview property fiasco where the Panel came down in favour of objectors? Is that why going to another Panel was deemed too great a risk– especially in light of the damning comments of the National Trust and the most recent (and hence valid) heritage assessement? See: http://www.trustadvocate.org.au/frogmore-soon-to-be-no-more/?
If the prospective buyer was other than Jewish Care would the Frogmore case now be firmly set for a panel hearing rather than demolition?

Here’s what happened. Please read carefully.

Delahunty declared a conflict of interest under Section 78(b)(1a) of the Local Government Act in that she’s a ‘manager of a company’ that ‘may have an interest’ in the proposal. Pilling then assumed the chair. Esakoff then declared a conflict under Section 79(b) under ‘conflicting personal interest’ in that she has ‘very close relatives’ who are ‘currently looking for aged care places’ and that she ‘feels’ that this wouldn’t be out of the question for them as a residence. ‘On that basis I request leave’ to declare the interest.

Pilling said that ‘I understand that I have to put that to a vote’. Hyams then said that ‘our current practice’ is for those making the request to leave the chamber. Esakoff left the chamber, vote was put and passed unanimously.

Lipshutz then moved to accept the motion (ie abandonment of heritage amendment) ‘as printed’. Hyams seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he had gone down to have a look at the Wahgoo property and it is ‘old’ and just because it is old does not ‘make it heritage’. Said that council had gone ahead with Heritage Victoria and they reported that the building was ‘not significant’ and that ‘in my view council should abandon the proposal’ for a heritage overlay.

HYAMS: called this item a ‘tough one’ since he claimed that ‘I do care’ about history and heritage as a member of the Historical Society. Also said that ‘council’ cares a lot about heritage and ‘that’s why there are 3,893 properties’ in Glen Eira listed under heritage zones and this includes over 100 individual properties. Said that ‘we conducted an exhaustive heritage assessment between 1996 and 2003’ and Wahgoo property was ‘not quite considered worthy’. Reason for this is that ‘it can’t be seen from the street’, and ‘modern additions obscuring it’ and there have been ‘fairly significant changes made’ to the building. Heritage Victoria ‘looked in detail’ and from the 8 criteria ‘determined that 3’ are ‘likely to be satisfied’ but ‘not at the State level’. Said that the 3 criteria relate to ‘historic’ and not ‘aesthetic’ reasons. Read out some of the judgements – ie that Frogmore is ‘one of a vast number’ of this type of buildings throughout Glen Eira. It also doesn’t have ‘novel or outstanding features’. The report ‘certainly doesn’t state’ why it should be heritage protected. If the additions hadn’t been added and if it was visible from the street then he thinks it would be ‘heritage worthy’. Council needs to balance the ‘benefit to the community’ and that would be ‘120 beds’ for aged care. ‘We have to accept’ that aged care places need this number of beds ‘to be viable’. So it’s ‘not a matter of having fewer beds’ and the ‘previous facility’ was ‘shut down because it was not viable’ and it had 60 beds. ‘We also need to respect the integrity of our planning system’ and the ‘would be purchaser’ and the current owners ‘rely on our planning system’ and that ‘we did exhaustively assess the heritage value’ of properties in Glen Eira in 1996 to 2003. Thus it is ‘preferable on the balance’ that the amendment is abandoned and that ‘we allow’ the plan to be submitted. ‘It is a reluctant decision on my part’.

SOUNNESS: said he was against the recommendation and concerned about ‘process’ – that if there is benefit that needs to be ‘documented’ and looked at closely and ‘that is the process that is in place for amendments’. Said that this ‘isn’t due process’ and it should go to those people who have greater ‘understanding’ of heritage. If it goes to a panel they might decide against heritage or they might determine that there is heritage value. What’s going to happen to the site ‘is not finished’ because plans are ‘sitting to one side’ and there are ‘many good sites’ that make an ‘effort to do heritage interpretation’. Acknowledged that when heritage ‘was done’ years ago the ‘problem’ of significant vegetation ‘wasn’t mentioned’. Said he suspects that many residents would believe that council isn’t really protecting minimal change areas and that this ‘is further proof that Glen Eira is not doing things effectively’ and not protecting minimal change areas ‘in the way that residents feel it should be done’. He is voting against because ‘at the very least due process’ means going to a panel. It will ‘delay things – that’s the process’ and that from the purchasers point of view this is being held up. He ‘regrets that’, but ‘we have a process’ and that’s the role of council who has the ‘authority’ and is representing residents. If the motion is defeated, then he is foreshadowing a motion to send to a planning panel.

OKOTEL: said that this isn’t ‘an easy decision’. Said the prospective purchasers acted in ‘good faith’. They did their research, and searches. As councillors they have the ‘initial assessment’ from heritage which said that there was no ‘heritage significance’ and ‘provided a grading of C’. If it had been C+ then ‘it would have been put in the register’. ‘More recently we’ve had the independent assessment’ and that decided there was ‘local significance on 3 grounds’ . Council then went to Heritage Victoria and they decided there ‘wasn’t any state significance’ but ‘acknowledged and agreed with the 3 grounds’ of the independent assessment’ but stopped short of endorsing ‘heritage significance’. (Member from gallery then stated – ‘at the State level). Okotel corrected and said ‘state level’ but it ‘didn’t conclude that there was’ significance at the ‘local level’. (again gallery comment – ‘they didn’t have to’) Okotel – ‘all right’. So the two reports are saying opposite things – early one no heritage value and independent assessment that there is heritage value. Okotel’s ‘difficulty’ is that there isn’t ‘sufficient detail as to whether or not’ to ‘warrant heritage’. Said she asked Heritage Victoria whether there was ‘evidence’ to warrant ‘local signficance’ and they replied that any ‘written’ statements would not ‘be specifying whether or not’ there was local significance’. Didn’t think that there is ‘enough evidence at this time’ for council to make the decision about whether Frogmore is worthy of local heritage protection and to ‘refer this matter to a panel’. Said that if referred to a panel as Sounness wants, then this would ’cause delay’ and would put the parties involved into ‘significant financial expenses’ such as ‘engaging lawyers’ planners and other ‘experts’. It would also ‘cost Council about $10,000’ and would ‘likely cost other parties that amount’. This would result in ‘two non-profit groups’ experiencing ‘significant additional expenses’ and even cost community groups is ‘they were to advocate on this issue as well’. So ‘it would be unfair to progress the matter’ to a panel. She thought it ‘would be more appropriate’ for Council to get ‘more information’ by engaging ‘three additional independent heritage assessors’ so then’council might make a decision, a more informed decision’ about whether to go to a panel.

LOBO: said that Frogmore mightn’t be ‘heritage’ listed but it’s been in ‘existence since 1889-90 so ‘it has been a part of people’s upbringing, culture, education’. He ‘understands the needs of an ageing populating’ but deciding on the issue ‘without another opinion’ from the panel is also fraught. The site ‘may or may not be an ideal place’ for an aged care facility. In order to vote on this, he said he needs to ‘depend on an independent panel’.

PILLING: thanked residents for their strong campaign and emails, posters, and ‘kudos for raising the issue’. Said he is trying to ‘make a balanced decision’ and looking at the ‘long term best interests of the community’. In 1996 they had a heritage assessment and ‘at the time the property wasn’t protected’ and the most recent assessment did recommend protection. The director of Heritage Victoria found that of the 8 criteria, the building only met 3 of the criteria and ‘last Thursday Heritage Victoria voted’ not to grant state level protection. Said ‘all councillors’ visited Frogmore ‘this morning’ and the pictures that some of the gallery are holding isn’t what the site looks like now. Said it is ‘a compromised site’ and at present is ‘derelict’. The two parties want to settle and Jewish Care wants to put in a 120 bed facility. He ‘feared’ that if this wasn’t ‘settled’ then the site ‘could be rezoned’ for residential and have ‘multi-unit developments on it’. He would ‘much prefer a community asset’. Said that ‘if someone wants to come along with $10 million to develop’ like Ripponlea then great but ‘I don’t think that is going to happen’. As Lipshutz said ‘we live in the real world’. Said he ‘understands’ the issue of ‘losing our older’ buildings such as the Boyd House in Murrumbeena but they are now faced with making a ‘decision on balance’ as to what is best for the community. Going to a panel when state institutions ‘won’t protect it’ and just because a former mayor lived there, and there are other houses where councillors/mayors have lived ‘does that make it heritage?’ This ‘is a compromised site’ and ‘it is not pristine’ and ‘I will be voting in favour of abandoning the amendment’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that ‘perhaps’ they should have ‘preserved heritage’ before. There was a property in Bambra road that was an ‘old mansion’ and was ‘turned into a hospital’ and ‘someone came along’ and put a home there and he thinks ‘it’s great’. ‘this property has been certainly compromised’ and isn’t the ‘pristine property it was when it was built’. Also ‘it doesn’t accord with the requirements of heritage’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED ON CASTING VOTE OF PILLING. VOTING IN FAVOUR OF ABANDONING AMENDMENT – LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, PILLING. VOTING AGAINST – LOBO, SOUNNESS, OKOTEL. PILLING, AS CHAIR, THEN HAD THE DECIDING VOTE.

And for the last few bits of info, see The Age article at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/residents-fail-in-attempt-to-preserve-historic-frogmore-house-from-demolition-20150610-ghkyz7.html

Also an audio interview with resident Jan Armstrong – http://www.magic1278.com.au/news/historic-home-to-face-the-wrecking-ball-20150611-ghlcfs.html

Plus a posting from Glen Eira Residents’ Association – http://geresidents.wordpress.com

and last but not least, the Leader’s contribution –

June 14, 2015

Councillors – Pass Or Fail?

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

Here is part of the record of the voting pattern from our 9 elected representatives since the introduction of the new zones. – ie September 2013 up to, and including the meeting of 19 May 2015. That is 20 months worth of decisions.

Please note that these are applications decided by a full council and does not include the multitude decided behind closed doors by the (anonymous) Delegated Planning Committee or the faceless ‘manager’. Further, according to planning permit Activity reports, 95% of decisions are made under delegation and not by councillors. That means that what is presented here is a minute fraction of all decisions and permits granted by Glen Eira Council.

Several trends are absolutely clear –

Generally speaking the higher the number of objections the more pressure councillors feel and hence the greater the chance that they will reject the application outright. This should be a clear message to residents – organise, agitate, and inform the community as to what is going on in various suburbs.
For those who are sceptical about the above, we’ve uploaded a conference paper which substantiates these claims.
The vast majority of applications coming before council were given the green light – by both officers and councillors. Only a handful went against officer recommendations and each garnered much publicity, complaints and objections (ie Penang Street, McKinnon; Mavho Street, Bentleigh)
Many of the decisions listed as ‘carried’ are a result of only one or two councillors voting against the motion – notably Lobo. The consistent performers in voting for development were Pilling, Lipshutz, Hyams, Sounness, Delahunty and Magee. Hence the majority of councillors still supported the officer’s recommendations.
In two instances, councillors granted a permit, only to have this refused by VCAT. For example, an Ames Avenue application was refused, but a new one, for one less dwelling has been resubmitted and approved at the last council meeting.
The total number of new units approved is literally staggering – even without the cave-ins over the Caulfield Village. Our count is for over 1800 new dwellings approved just by this group of councillors. Please remember that this figure represents only a small percentage of all decisions.
Please also note the number of applications which were passed UNANIMOUSLY. So much for all the concern, all the crocodile tears, all the hand wringing. If councillors were really that concerned then amendment after amendment would already have been rushed through. The truth of the matter is that the pro-development mentality of this administration is holding sway and councillors are generally going along for the ride.

The Unanimous Decisions

149-153 NEERIM ROAD & 4 HINTON ROAD, GLEN HUNTLY – 17 double storeys
2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE – Six storey building 40 dwellings
674 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST – 3 storey building,2 shops, 8 dwellings
730A CENTRE ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – 4 storey, 21 dwellings
677-679 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST – 4 storey, 2 shops, 10 dwellings
534-538 North Road ORMOND – 4 storey, 2 shops, 20 dwellings
7 Ormond Road ORMOND – 3 storey, 15 dwellings
115-125 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA – 4 storey, 2 offices, 33 dwellings
15-17 Belsize Avenue & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storey, 52 dwellings (vote was for 47 units – VCAT permitted up to 52 units)
22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 36 dwellings
1A Orrong Crescent and 632A Inkerman Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 3 storey, 3 shops, 16 dwellings

Some Other Significant Applications

Gordon Street (8 storey and 55 units) was rejected on a split vote. Those in favour were – Lipshutz, Delahunty, Sounness and Pilling
Loranne Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey, 28 units. Voting for – Lipshutz, Hyams, Pilling, Sounness, Esakoff, Delahunty, Magee
24-26 Mavho Street BENTLEIGH – cut down to 3 storey; 25 dwellings. Voting for maximum proposed – Pilling

There are countless other decisions that have been passed – either unanimously, or with this mob’s usual tactic of lopping off one storey, and a handful of units. The result is VCAT and if the Planning Scheme does not have the necessary ‘tools’ to protect neighbourhoods, then there is no reason why the VCAT member should accept such minute tinkering by councillors!

There is overdevelopment. That is beyond argument. Yet Glen Eira Councillors have failed to set appropriate policy and have failed dismally to listen to residents’ demands for a comprehensive review of the Planning Scheme’s shortcomings and gaps. Until this has been initiated and acted upon by councillors, then residents can have very little faith that these 9 men and women are in fact fulfilling their statutary and ethical mandate to listen to the community and act in their best interests.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates