GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 19, 2015

Virginia Park & The Games Council Plays!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

Item 9.6 Virginia Park Estate

Prior to reporting on this item, some background information is vital so that readers can put the following into perspective.

  • In the past few council meetings alone, 3 proposed draft amendments have been rejected by councillors. Not one single councillor stated why this should not occur with this particular amendment. Instead there was the ad nauseum repetition of the ‘first step in the process’ etc. Past history shows that this is generally nothing more than double-speak for ultimate ‘approval’ of the amendment.
  • Not one single councillor stated that third party objection rights did not exist beyond the amendment. For all the talk about the community expressing their views (when they know absolutely nothing about the ‘detail’ of the proposed plan) is precisely what happened with the Caulfield Village fiasco. The only difference between this proposal and the Caulfield Village is that it will be 9 councillors to decide instead of the annointed 4, and the doubling at least of the number of dwellings.
  • The machinations and back room dealings over this site go back many, many years. Amendment C75, restricted residential development to only the centre of the site. Only one tiny sentence in the original officer’s report mentioned the fact that ten storeys was envisaged. Now it is proposed to make the entire site ‘suitable’ for residential. Magee claims that council and councillors were left in the dark and the Gillon letter of June 17th was asking ‘assurance’ that Council would support the amendment. Then in an email written by Andrew Newton on the 30th July 2013 to Richard Brice of the minister’s department, as an ‘inducement’ for the introduction of the new residential zones, he wrote – Viginia Park industrial estate (12 hectares): Amendment to be exhibited to rezone all to C1. Expected to be finalised next year. We have to query whether councillors knew of this ‘promise’! Needless to say, no resolution has surfaced which would support such ‘approval’. Nor is Virginia Estate mentioned in any of the Records of Assembly for this period. Again, either the records are are not an accurate representation of the topics discussed or councillors were not informed that this new upcoming amendment had received the nod of approval from the bureaucrats!
  • There has been no explanation provided, following a public question, as to why the limited constraints of Amendment C75 are now to be removed with this new amendment (ie setbacks in particular). Basically, we fear, that this is another Caulfield Village in the making and all the bluff and bluster that follows is nothing more than individual grandstanding, and ensuring that all the legal t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted!
  • As for Magee’s silencing of Lobo, we suggest that Magee refer to the Local Law meeting procedures. Any councillor has the right to raise a point of order as to ‘relevance’. Gagging councillors with ‘you wouldn’t be allowed to do that’ is in our view not only incorrect but abuse of his position.

Magee moved motion to accept ‘as printed’ from the chair. Sounness seconded. We point out at this stage that in other councils Mayors must vacate the chair if they move or second any motion. Not so according to the Glen Eira Meeting procedures. More on this throughout the ensuing discussion!

MAGEE: said that the last council group passed an amendment on this in ‘2011 or 2012’. Said that the amendment is up again because it is currently commercial 1 and commercial 2 and with the new zones this gives the developer the ‘opportunity’ to have it all rezoned as commercial one. Claimed that the ‘reasons’ for rezoning are ‘all fair’ but that he has got some ‘serious concerns’. Council got a letter from the Gillon group on the 17th June a ‘few years back’ in 2013. Quoted from the letter which said that they had had ‘discussions with senior officers of the department’ who are in favour of rezoning and that this was to coincide with the introduction of the new zones on July 1st. ‘We seek written confirmation from Council that they would be supportive’ of this rezoning. Magee then said that the ‘developer went straight to the Minister’ and that ‘they had in principle support from them’. Then on the 28th June councillors got ‘some advice from officers’ that the owners hoped this would happen ‘without public consultation’ and that the ‘minister was supportive of this process’. Then there was a ‘follow up letter’ from Elizabeth Miller dated the 24th June when ‘councillors aren’t even aware of this as yet’. Magee quoted her as writing she is ‘supportive of the proposal’ and that this would ‘serve as a model for other precincts to replicate’. Said that the last to ‘know about this were us” the ‘residents of East Bentleigh’. Called this the ‘perfect storm’ and here’s commercial zone in a ‘predominantly’ residential zone with the ‘potential’ for 12, 4 and 6 storeys plus ‘four and a half thousand’ apartments. It would be a ‘mini chadstone’. It will affect amenity and ‘will not be good’. Said every school is ‘full’ with no ‘railway station’ and only ‘one bus that runs along North Road’. Ultimately ‘there is nothing here to support this’. But ‘this is the process of putting it out’ and of ‘going to the community’ and that’s what council ‘wanted’ all along. Magee didn’t think that the community ‘would be supportive’ of the amendment. Went on to say that there is an ‘opportunity’ to develop the land and that the ‘developer has every right to do that’. Magee would prefer that the developer ‘went for a neighbourhood residential zone’.

SOUNESS: called Magee an ‘angry tiger’. Accepted that this is part of the ‘process’ and that there would be many ‘queries’ about the impacts. Said there would also be ‘infrastructure matters’ that shouldn’t fall to council to fix. Talked about the surrounding residential areas and the transition. If a large development is going to happen then he would ‘be looking for’ ‘transport opportunities’ and ‘there are none along here’. But ‘we start to go down this process and see where this process takes us’.

DELAHUNTY: said that Magee reminded them of the ‘dark times’ in planning and the ‘Point Nepean disaster’ when councillors ‘were shocked’ that ‘this sort of process would go on’ in Glen Eira with ‘such an obvious site’. Wondered if any ‘investigative journalist’ would get to the bottom of the relationship between the Gillon Group and the former government. Thought that this is ‘probably a lead worth pursuing’ and that ‘it could have gone ahead without this proper process’. So ‘Council is at step one of a proper process’. Whatever happens the ‘community will have their say’. It’s a ‘massive site’ and does ‘provide’ some jobs and she was looking forward to submissions from businesses because she understood that there were some ‘ownership rights’ involved. Repeated that this is ‘step one of a proper process’ and is the way ‘things should be done’.

PILLING: acknowledged Delahunty’s ‘passion’ but this is the ‘start of the process’ and thought it was ‘quite proper’. Said that with the ‘redevelopment of the site’ there are ‘opportunities there’.

ESAKOFF: said that she was ‘really disappointed with the sorts of comments that I’m hearing’ which make it sound like there is ‘something very underhanded’ going on and that there had ‘been some sort of dealing’ happening. Said that the ‘political side to this’ is both ‘unnecessary and uncalled for’. As a local council they are dealing with an ‘amendment’ and she is ‘very disappointed in what I’ve been hearing’. Said that ‘Mr Burke’ should make sure that ‘we retain those tapes’ of tonight about the ‘comments that have been made’. Went on to say that in comparing what ‘is there now’ to what was there ’50 years ago’. Currently it’s ‘bits and pieces’ but ‘East Bentleigh believe me is coping’ and if there are ‘some residents living there too, they will also cope’. Said she ‘grew up with the North Road bus’ and that it ‘took me ten minutes’ to walk to the bus and ‘three minutes to get to Ormond Station’ – ‘it really didn’t kill me, yet’. ‘The overdramatisation of this item is beyond belief’ plus the ‘political innuendo is moreso – very disappointing’.

HYAMS: asked Torres when the rezoning request came to council.

TORRES: didn’t remember the exact date but it was ‘relatively recently’. Hyams then asked ‘this year?’ and confirmed by Torres

HYAMS: didn’t see anything ‘underhand’ in the developer ‘approaching’ the local member and that the Labor members had also found ‘to their cost’ that they should be ‘advocating’ for East Bentleigh. Apart from the politics the owner is applying for commercial rezoning. The site is ‘underutilised’ and Amendment C75 ‘set up certain heights’ and this amendment ‘won’t change those heights’ or the setbacks. He ‘shares the reservations’ about the impact on the community but this is a ‘step’ in the amendment process. Couldn’t see ‘any reason’ for opposing the amendment ‘going out to the community’. So once they get feedback they ‘might’ decide to go to an ‘independent panel’ or ‘decide otherwise’.

LIPSHUTZ: joined others in saying that he didn’t ‘like the political aspects to this’. But he has some ‘reservations’ about how ‘this property will be developed’. Said that there’s a saying that ‘if you build it they will come’ but if this were Chadstone ‘it might be a good thing’ but whether it’s a good thing or not will ‘come down to the community’ giving their views. Regardless of what councillors might think about ‘appropriate or inappropriate’, the ‘community will have their say’. Said that it is ‘important to do that’ because it’s a huge site and ‘underdeveloped’. Said he doesn’t ‘lionise the developer’ and all this has to be ‘checked very carefully’ because this is a ‘site that can prove’ to be a ‘great benefit to East Bentleigh’ or a detriment. So ‘the community will have their say’.

LOBO: said he could have told Magee to ‘speak to the motion’ (moderators: this comment is in regard to Magee telling Lobo on a previous item to ‘speak to the motion’)

MAGEE: ‘you wouldn’t be allowed to do that!’

LOBO: said this would turn out to ‘be a big Chadstone’ and will impact on ‘neighbouring businesses’ in Tucker,East Boundary and Mackie Roads. They will be ‘suffering’ and ‘maybe closing as a result’. Said that ‘we did not consult on zones’ and ‘we are going to consult on this’.

MAGEE: told Lobo he was ‘incorrect’ in that council did consult in 2010. Said that for ‘clarification’ his comments on Guy ‘were not political statements’ but ‘statements of fact’. He simply quoted from the letters. Said that to the ‘north there is another industrial estate’ and more commercial sites. Thought that ‘in the future’ ‘more will follow’ so if this is to have ‘5000 apartments’ then ‘next door could see the same’. Said that in East Bentleigh there would be ‘upwards of ten thousand’ new dwellings. Called all this a ‘major impact’ on the area, on amenity, and on transport and if there’s a new shopping centre then another impact on existing businesses. ‘But it is Stage 1’ where the community is asked ‘what do you think’. Councillors will then ‘adjudicate’ and have the option of a panel, or do ‘whatever we please’. Said that he thinks the ‘community has a right to know’ what is ‘in store’. Said that he ‘could bet that this has been planned to the last doorway’. Said that the developer ‘knows exactly’ what will be on the site and that the only ‘people who don’t know are you and me’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PS; THE PLOT THICKENS EVEN MORE ON WHO KNEW WHAT WHEN AND HOW THIS ALL CAME ABOUT. PLEASE SEE THE SCREEN DUMP BELOW AND NOTE THE DATE OF THIS PUBLICATION. Source is: http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20141104/pdf/42th5bhxvbgp45.pdf

Untitled

 

March 18, 2015

Moorabbin Leader & Hansard

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

wynne

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve
Following petition presented to house:
To the Legislative Council of Victoria:
The petition of residents of Victoria draws to the attention of the house the potential conflict of interest of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve trustees in their commercial relationships with the Melbourne Racing Club.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council of Victoria take action to instigate a public inquiry into past commercial transactions between the trustees and Melbourne Racing Club, and call on the minister for environment and the Minister for Racing to end further alienation of this public land, ensure management by the trustees is transparent and accountable, and enforce the three uses of the reserve defined by the Crown grant.
By Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan)
(794 signatures).
Laid on table.
Ordered to be considered next day on motion of Ms PENNICUIK (SouthernMetropolitan).

PS: we have received the following notice from a resident. Once again local amenity will be disturbed by the MRC money making ventures. We wonder:

  • has a permit been granted for this new event?
  • has a lease been signed as yet?
  • what guarantee do residents have that the sound will be within EPA limits? Who will supervise and ensure that the legal requirements are met?

2015 03 21 Concert0001

 

March 17, 2015

Shame, Shame, Shame!

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

In Council minutes of November 13th 2012, there is included the ‘minutes’ of the then Community Consultation Committee. Recorded in these minutes is the sentence – Committee minutes to be distributed to all members of the Committee prior to adoption by Council

In the current agenda we have the latest ‘minutes’ from the new Community Consultation Committee. Here are two sentences from these minutes – A list of action items from minutes of 8 October 2014 was tabled for information. It was suggested that community representatives have the opportunity to review committee minutes prior to them going to Council for approval.

So nearly three years down the track nothing has been done to ensure that minutes from this committee (and probably others) are provided first of all to the relevant committee members for checking, comment, and acceptance as a ‘true and accurate’ representation of what occurred at the meetings. The fact that this is twice recorded as a concern indicates that community reps were, and are, far from impressed with the ‘official’ version of what occurred. The ‘doctoring’ of minutes, and selective editing occurs unabated it would seem.

Once again governance and transparency are the victims in Glen Eira. God forbid that community reps get the chance to vet officer produced versions of reality and to offer their views on these supposed ‘accurate’ representations of what occurred!

 

March 16, 2015

Bye, Bye, Tree Register?

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

On the 26th May 2003 a public question asked whether or not Council had a significant tree register and if one wasn’t in existence, when it would get off the ground. Twelve years later, residents are still waiting for any sign of a tree register. After numerous revisits to the issue, there is yet another officer report in this week’s agenda. Mind, not a report by the Local Law Committee which for the past 2 years has been charged with delivering the ‘framework’ for the introduction of a Local Law. Residents remain excluded from the documentation, the reasoning, any actual draft. What is now put into the public domain is an unnamed officer report that finally reveals the real agenda of council. One of the recommendations is designed to scuttle the issue of a tree register for good. – ie Resolve not to proceed with Item 7i in the Community Plan Action Plan for 2014-15. 

Given past voting on anything to do with this issue we anticipate that trees will continue to be an endangered species in Glen Eira and developers will continue to moonscape sites without fear of penalty. This judgement is based on previous councillor comments and, unless they have seen the light, we do not anticipate any change. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/still-going-round-the-mulberry-bush-10-years-on/ AND https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-saga-of-the-tree-register/

The other ‘advantage’ in killing off the idea for a tree register now is that it will then not proceed to be part of any ‘review’ of the Local Law. That means that there will be no public consultation on the issue since any amendment to the Local Law mandates public submissions. The intent in our view is clear – to do nothing and to prevent the community from having any say in the matter! This is again in spite of the specific resolution passed on the 27th April 2011. Another example of where resolutions in Glen Eira mean absolutely nothing! The resolution read:

Crs Pilling/Tang

That Council:

  1. Creates a classified tree register based on identification of trees whichmeet the criteria in attachment 1, and
  1. Drafts a Local Law to give effect to management and protection of trees listed on the classified tree register.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

It is quite unconscionable that the unnamed officer report can only manage two pages on an issue that is so contentious and when report after report (especially the recent Open Space Strategy) emphasises the importance that residents place on trees. Further, this report makes no mention of the above resolution. It refers only to the ‘aspirational’ component of the Council Plan! And of these two pages, the first page is nothing more than gobbledygook – short on truth, facts, and relevance. It again parades the nonsense of how well Glen Eira protects ‘200 valued trees’ via its planning application process. Given the admission that over 1200 applications come in each year (and one Magee claim is for over 1500 applications per annum and likely to be far more by now) then this surely represents a paltry figure of ‘protection’ – even granted that many applications will not have ‘valued trees’ on the property. What this also does not take into account is how many amended permits are submitted to REMOVE trees from a development and how many of these Council approves.

The greatest distortion of reality comes with this set of sentences – The ResCode mechanism is that any tree removed within 12 months of a town planning application being lodged must be assessed as though the ‘removed’ tree is still in place. This has proven to be somewhat of a defacto tree retention control because it has effectively removed any advantage a developer could gain from moonscaping. This means that any town planning application for medium density dwellings needs to consider existing tree/vegetation.

A truck could literally be driven through this nonsense – and it has. None of this takes into account land banking where a developer purchases a property, and possibly rents it out for years, BEFORE any planning application is lodged. In the meantime of course, every ‘significant tree’ is removed.

In June last year we featured a post where a healthy and huge tree sitting on the title border was destroyed after the property had been purchased by a developer. A new tree has now been planted in this exact spot. Thus, when the planning application eventually goes in, council will simply determine that this sapling is anything but a ‘significant’ tree and grant permission for its removal. The developer escapes unscathed, unfined, and literally untouchable since he has exercised the wonderful ‘escape loop’ in the far from ‘effective’ planning process.

Here are the BEFORE AND AFTER photos of this site –

P1000301

Untitled

We have commented numerous times on this ‘no action’ council and how often it flies in the face of community views. Resolutions are passed only to be ignored and reneged upon. We reiterate: the community values its trees – not just on public land, but also private land. Given the rate of development, it is incumbent on councillors to ensure that every single avenue is pursued to protect the environment. We would go even further and suggest that Local Law protection is basically limited to mere officer decision making with again no decision making capacity by councillors (unless specifically spelt out) or by residents. Plenty of other councils (ie Whitehorse, Moonee Valley) have tree registers as part of their Planning Scheme. Such an option is naturally ‘verboten’ in Glen Eira since it would impinge on the current power structures and involve far more transparent and accountable decision making.

 

March 11, 2015

Same Horse, Different Jockey?

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

UntitledAND

complaints

 

March 4, 2015

Politics & The Zones

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

On the 25th February 2015, both sides of politics passed this motion in parliament.

That in accordance with standing order 11.01, there be tabled in the Council, by 12 noon on Wednesday, 11 March 2015, a copy of the report prepared for the Minister for Planning by the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee concerning draft amendment C125 relating to the city of Bayside.

Amendment C125 relates in part to Bayside’s attempt to basically overturn the Residential Growth Zones in its municipality. We will refrain from commenting on the performance of this Standing Advisory Committee thus far and its previous recommendations concerning Kingston, Moreland, Moonee Valley and so on. What is of interest in the debate are the comments representing all sides of politics.

We also suggest that when reading the following, readers keep in mind what occurred in Glen Eira – that is: secrecy, no consultation, and deliberate obfuscation in response to various public questions.

MR DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan)…… This is about the shape of our suburbs. This about residential amenity. I put on record as a general principle my belief that there is great scope for transit-orientated developments with a focus on higher density in and around transport nodes, but it must be done in a way that brings the community with the proposals. It needs to have full community consultation, and councils and the community need to be working in harmony to see developments like that accepted and brought forward. They must be designed in a way that is sympathetic to the community.

This motion is a narrow one. It seeks to make public that report by the panel. I can indicate that the opposition will make some further decisions when we see that report, but it is clear that amendment C125 and the proposals around it need some significant further work. The panel report is a key document that should be in the public domain to inform public debate, and for that reason this motion is in the public interest.

Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan)—In short, the Greens certainly support this motion. We support open and transparent government and of course we support the release of the planning panel report in relation to amendment C125 to the Bayside planning scheme. What is important in relation to this is what the community thinks about the nature and shape of their suburbs. It involves the character, amenity and built form of the area, and certainly planning scheme amendments provide ample opportunity for those matters to be picked up through design and development overlays and schedules attached to the planning scheme.

The planning panel report will provide an opportunity to see how those consultations went. It will be interesting to understand the length and breadth of the contributions and how many people had an opportunity to participate. The reality is that this is about the shape and nature of our suburbs and of Melbourne, so it is important that communities share that journey when we are talking about matters as important as planning scheme amendments and the difference between general residential zones and residential growth zones. Certainly the Greens support the release of this planning panel report, and we look forward to seeing what is contained within it.

Mr SOMYUREK (Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade)—The Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee has prepared its report on amendment C125 to the Bayside planning scheme and has submitted it to the department for assessment. The Minister for Planning will shortly be briefed on the recommendations of the independent committee for his review. Once a decision has been made by the Minister for Planning the report will be released. It is in no-one’s interests to prolong the debate, and the Minister for Planning requires suitable time to assess the independent committee’s recommendations without interference. If the committee report is released prior to a decision being made, proponents and the community will continue to make submissions on the substantive matter and the panel report. This does not add to the quality or timeliness of the decision-making.

There is a clear and transparent process for consideration of these proposed amendments, and it is important that this process is honoured. While it is at the minister’s discretion as to whether to release the committee report, I can confirm that the minister will release the report once he has been briefed and a decision has been made.

This government is committed to clear and transparent decision-making that takes into account the views of the community. We were very concerned about the mismanagement of the process for the rollout of the new zones and will be undertaking a full review.

Motion agreed to.

PS: From this week’s Leader ‘Letter to the Editor’.

Untitledletter

 

March 2, 2015

‘People Power’, Due Diligence & Public Monies

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

Apologies for another long post!

At last council meeting councillors voted to abandon Amendment C124 which proposed to rezone a disused industrial site in Clairmont Avenue to General Residential Zone 3 (ie three storey height limit). This was undoubtedly the ‘right’ decision, but it also raises innumerable questions regarding:

  • Councillors’ due diligence and the needless expenditure of public monies
  • an officer’s report (recommending adoption of the amendment) which is so selective in what is quoted that it is indeed laughable
  • more ‘problems’ with the current planning scheme that Council seemingly refuses to address

We will go through each of the above points in turn.

Due Diligence

Most of the arguments for rejecting the proposed amendment were known right from the start – ie traffic concerns, predominantly Neighbourhood Residential Zone area, lack of transport nearby or shopping strips. In the 6 months that it took to receive permission to advertise the amendment, receive submissions, go to a directions hearing and then a Panel Hearing, none of these factors CHANGED. So why did ratepayers have to fork out thousands and thousands of dollars for a panel, plus staff time, to propose something that was eventually overturned by councillors? Did councillors perform due diligence right from the start and investigate the area, and the proposed amendment thoroughly for themselves? If they did, then why didn’t they reject the proposed amendment much earlier in the process? Or was it that residents of Clairmont Avenue actually got together and started serious lobbying of councillors?

In the discussion for this item, (see below) several councillors made mention of the fact that they had received numerous calls from residents. We congratulate residents, but our argument remains constant. Councillor decisions should not be based on the number of complainants but on the facts of the matter. If all the arguments that appeared at the last minute and lead to the abandonment of the proposal were there right from the start, then the amendment should never have been entertained. It should have been rejected outright last July. It wasn’t, and so ratepayers find themselves funding another useless exercise in double-speak and bureaucratic bungling. Nor does this entire episode cover councillors in glory. For instance: why didn’t they listen to residents right from the beginning? Why did they merely blindly follow officer recommendations – not once, but twice, only to baulk at the final decision?

The Officer Report

Selective editing of important documents is not new to Glen Eira City Council. Unlike countless other councils, Panel Reports are rarely included (in full) in tabled minutes or agendas. Residents either have to physically go down to council to ‘inspect’ or wait until the Department places them up on their website. More worrying is that when decisions are made to adopt, reject, or amend, what is left out is often more telling than what is stated. There is much in this Planning Panel Report (uploaded in full HERE) that does not get a mention in the council minutes. Most of what is omitted is of course what council would like to keep out of the public domain. For example:

The Panel agrees that the application of the NRZ would be largely appropriate if it were not for the fact that that zone makes no proper allowance for development of redundant larger sites such as the subject site. (page 11) In other words, the current planning scheme is inadequate to deal with the two storey height limit imposed in NRZ for large sites.

And there’s more, including this explicit criticism of the ‘reformed’ zones –

While it might be possible for a multi‐unit development to be developed on the subject site by subdividing the land in advance of construction, in my view this would not be a practical approach to development of the site, especially if the development involved dwellings on more than one level. The provisions of the NRZ may well be have been designed to place stringent limits on the intensification of housing on prevailing standard sized house lots, but the absence of any provisions recognising the possible presence of larger sites within that zone with potential for redevelopment is a strange omission.

Accordingly, I agree with the Council that it is not reasonable in terms of making efficient use of the land for residential purposes to include the land in the NRZ. The GRZ3 is an appropriate choice – a zone specifically designed for in‐fill sites.

Conclusion? The Panel’s agreement to the rezoning of the land to GRZ3 is largely based on the fact that the current planning scheme has so many ‘omissions’, and is so inadequate to deal with this issue, that the only feasible solution is a GRZ3 zoning. The officer’s report naturally omitted this important paragraph and only included the final paragraph shown in the above quote.

What’s even more disconcerting is that the Panel has to recommend that Council to get off its backside and do something about traffic and parking issues in the street as well as ensuring that permits are adhered to.

The Panel noted the reasonably large amount on street parking occurring in the street at 4:15pm on the day of its inspection (more than 17 spaces were occupied) and that vehicles were being driven away around that time by persons apparently leaving work for the day. The Panel requested that Council particularly address this issue raised by submitters.

At the Hearing, Ms Pascoe advised that the Council’s engineers were aware of the parking and traffic issues in the street. She said that they were partly caused by the panel beating and motor repair businesses now operating on the site which have no planning permission. Enforcement proceedings have been initiated.

Again, this was not mentioned in the officer report! Nor was there any mention of the fact that the ‘accuracy’ of the applicant’s Traffic Report was seriously queried by Council’s Traffic Department. Yet, the amendment was still drafted and presented to councillors without spelling this out.

Finally, presented below is the ‘discussion’ on this item. We ask readers to pay careful attention to the various commendations of residents and keep in mind that ‘populist’ decisions do not equate with councillors performing due diligence and making sure they are fully acquainted with all the facts of the matter. Otherwise more and more money will be wasted on such enterprises whilst the real culprit, the planning scheme, remains untouched and unrevisited!

The Council ‘Discussion’

Hyams moved motion to abandon amendment and to notify applicant that council would be prepared to support an amendment to rezone to Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Seconded by Lobo.

HYAMS: said that there was ‘little doubt’ that the area should be rezoned for residential but the ‘question’ is whether this be NRZ or GRZ3. Said he would have liked to vote on the NRZ zoning now but ‘legal advice’ told him that they couldn’t do this without first abandoning the exhibited amendment and coming up with a new one. The choice is therefore to adopt ‘as proposed for GRZ3’ or to abandon. So ‘after consulting with residents’ he is prepared to ‘try and get a better result next time’ with a new amendment. He’s read the panel report, seen the site and talked with residents and thinks that GRZ is ‘inappropriate’ since it’s already a ‘narrow and busy street’ with a nearby school and an aged care facility that got approval for more beds up to 100+. There’s the questions then of whether the street ‘can handle’ all this traffic. GRZ zones are also ‘generally near shops and public transport’ and this doesn’t apply here. Once a GRZ zone is declared then it ‘limits our ability’ to control ‘what goes there’. Said it would be ‘ridiculous’ to limit ‘such a large block to 2 dwellings’ as applies in the NRZ but ‘that can be overcome through subdivision’. Thought there could be 8 blocks. Residents weren’t happy with the industrial zone because of ‘the noise that comes out of that’ but that they hope to get this right.

LOBO: said this is ‘most certainly not appropriate for our residents’ . Said that he and residents are ‘appalled that we are continuously giving in to the wishes of developers’. Said it is ‘shocking to see the opportunist’ wanting to ‘reap the benefit’ without ‘any concern for the residents’. Said that the spate of development has ‘drowned everyone including the best swimmers’. Residents told him last Sunday’ that they hadn’t got any letter from council inviting them to the panel hearing and the panel report then noted that no objector showed up. The aged care facility will see ‘another 101 residents’ and parking will be bad and bottlenecks for parents dropping kids off at school. ‘3 schools in the vicinity’. ‘The panel is out of touch with reality’ and that ‘they have no clue whatsoever compared to councillors’.

MAGEE interrupted and asked Lobo to ‘speak directly’ to the motion and to ‘leave the rhetoric and the stories out’.

LOBO: repeated the problems with the aged care facility and that the street is used as a thoroughfare through to Nepean Highway. Urged councillors to abandon amendment as this would ‘give a breather to the residents whom we are supposed to represent’.

MAGEE retorted that he thought that is what councillors do.

LIPSHUTZ: asked Torres about notice of the amendment. Torres responded that there was an ‘exhibition period’ and that residents ‘were informed of the amendment’. Also that it was the Planning Panel which notified submitters of their option to attend the hearings. Said that submitters did participate in the ‘directions hearing’ but that at the actual panel hearing ‘submitters chose not to attend’.

LIPSHUTZ: he ‘took umbrage’ at Lobo’s comments about council and developers. Said that ‘there is nothing wrong with profit’ and that the developer purchased this industrial site and now want to make a profit and that ‘this is a good thing’ because ‘that’s how we grow our society’. Besides, this developer hasn’t even put in a proposal yet so Lobo is ‘jumping the gun just a little’. At first he thought that there was ‘nothing wrong’ with the draft amendment. He then ‘went down the street’ and because it is a ‘narrow street’ and because of the nursing home a NRZ is the ‘preferred way to go’. ‘It’s not because of greed’ and councillors make decisions on what they ‘think is right’. They don’t ‘always do what residents want’ because ‘we are elected to make decisions’. They wouldn’t be doing ‘residents any favours at all’ if all they listened to was the ‘loudest’ voice. Said that ‘it’s all right to play the gallery’ but in the end councillors have to be ‘responsible’. Councillors have to ‘make the right decisions’ and if residents don’t agree then ‘that’s fine’ and residents can ‘vote us out’. In this instance applying a GRZ3 is not ‘appropriate’ because it will ‘allow too much development in this area’.

PILLING: agreed that Lobo’s comments ‘are inappropriate’ because ‘they misrepresent the process today’. His comments are ‘unnecessary, unfair and unwarranted’. Plus they ‘give the gallery the wrong view as well’. Thought that this was a ‘line ball decision’ since the panel recommended the GRZ3 zoning. The zones give a buffer area between RGZ, GRZ and NRZ which is normal across the municipality and he supports the motion because ‘there are special circumstances to this site’. He ‘appreciated’ all the calls from residents and even though he didn’t agree with all the comments he does agree that GRZ zones are generally close to transport hubs and this isn’t. So this is ‘probably on the perimeter of where a GRZ’ zone should be. So ‘it’s a line ball decision’ but he will support the motion.

ESAKOFF: agreed with Pilling and Lipshutz’s response to Lobo’s comments. Said that councillors had ‘received a lot of feedback’ from residents and that they had visited and ‘know the street pretty well now’. Street is small, ‘narrow and not close to public transport’. This area ‘is very different’ to other GRZ areas. Street is busy with nursing home, school, childcare, and ‘used by the staff who work along the highway’. Rezoning this to GRZ would ‘turn this busy street into an unsustainable one’. Hence it should be ‘zoned neighbourhood residential’.

DELAHUNTY: found it hard to accept Lipshutz saying that profit progresses society since ‘we stand here as a non-profit’ organisation that is in a ‘governance role’ is how ‘we progress society’ plus ‘other ways’ too. Because council doesn’t have the profit motive, that’s ‘how we ensure’ that decisions made are ‘transparent’ and ‘in the best interests of all the parties’. Thanked the residents who had ‘got themselves incredibly informed’ about ‘what was happening to their area’ and how they ‘imparted knowledge’ onto others and ‘helped us make this decision’. Said ‘there had been a volume of calls’ and she thanked residents. Supported abandonment and thought there were more ‘sophisticated’ ways of dealing with the area.

SOUNNESS: didn’t think it was a ‘bad amendment’ and that the ‘factors that speak for it are quite sound’ and a ‘couple of factors’ against. In favour was a major highway ‘right next to it’ and people drive cars. Didn’t think that traffic is ‘a big problem’ and on the narrow road, ‘there are other narrow roads’ in the municipality. Main problem was ‘transitioning story’. If transitioning from a ‘commercial 2 zone’ to a general residential to ‘something that’s got no height limit’ to something that ‘does have a height limit’. He ‘didn’t see the need for that transition to take place there’ since it’s all a ‘theoretical construct’. All in all, this amendment ‘has got too much growth that didn’t seem warranted’. Also didn’t ‘like the distance from public transport’. The application seems ‘reasonable’ and he has spent an hour in a recently opened coffee shop that seemed to be ‘doing gang busters’ so the ‘place is ready for urban renewal’. He looked forward to see this happening in a ‘measured way’.

OKOTEL: said that rezoning from industrial to residential is ‘far more appropriate’ use of the land. But having a general residential zone ‘might signal’ to the developer that council is ‘entertaining’ the idea of ‘more intense development’ for the site ‘which wouldn’t be appropriate’ because of the ‘existence of many one storey dwellings’ and the other factors that councillors have outlined. With the nursing home they ‘anticipate that traffic will increase quite a lot’. ‘Hoped that the developer takes up’ council’s ‘recommendation’ that this be rezoned to Neighbourhood Residential Zone and she ‘looks forward to that in the future’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

As a postscript, we should mention that when it was decided to sent the amendment off to a panel, the ‘discussion’ took less than 2 minutes. Only Sounness who moved the motion spoke and basically said that he felt that the officer’s comments had largely ‘addressed’ resident concerns. No other councillor spoke to the motion and it was passed unanimously! Amazing, that in the space of three months there should be such a change of heart and such ‘garrulousness’ when previously there was utter silence from the vast majority of our elected representatives!

 

 

 

 

February 17, 2015

A Level Playing Field?

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

On July 3rd 2013, Hyams uttered these incredible words in regard to the Alma Club development application – ‘council’s role is not to necessarily represent the people’. Perhaps Hyams needs to revisit the Local Government Act, where part of its objectives for local councils is the injunction to act ‘as a representative government!’ Not for the first time was the gallery assailed with the double-speak of ‘quasi-judicial’ functions and ‘planning law’ and the inference that all planning decisions and processes are therefore objective and strictly ‘neutral’. Council’s published ‘information’ on planning objections enshrines this notion of ‘impartiality’ when it states – Planners must act impartially as an assessor of an application.

So, we are left with the conundrum of – who does council really represent? The answer is clear in this screen dump!

UntitledSource: http://pillarandpost.com.au/topics/neighbourhood-character/

 

February 12, 2015

Why Is This Acceptable – #2

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

We’ve received the following letter of complaint that was sent to Council. As with most things connected with the racecourse and the MRC, residential amenity appears to be the last thing to worry either the Melbourne Racing Club, or for that matter, Council.

We have been asked to remove the sender’s name.

Dear sir,

I have been driven to write to you about the continual flouting of local law by the Melbourne Racing Club at Caulfield Racecourse with respect to illegal noise levels. These are illegal by virtue of the excessive volume that penetrates inside residential dwellings yet some distance from the racecourse itself – never mind those in the immediate vicinity (according to a resident of Fitzgibbon Crescent, for example. Name can be supplied upon request).

Although there are many examples on a relatively regular basis, today the racecourse rented out its premises to the “I dream all day” music event (rave/festival). The incessant bass pounded all day penetrating our home and garden. We were unable to relax the whole day. The children were unable to sleep. Now, don’t misunderstand, I LOVE electronic dance music, and attend the odd festival myself – but these are not held in a residential suburb. When I went to inspect the source of the noise, the walls of the racecourse along Station Street, cladded with corrugated iron, were reverberating from the amazing volume of sound.The noise level was entirely inappropriate for the residential surrounds of the racecourse (surrounded as it is on all sides by family homes), and was undoubtedly beyond any legal limit. It penetrated throughout my home far away in Eskdale Road. It went on and on all day with no respite.

Other events that the racecourse holds for its own profit at the expense of residents resulting in shattered neighbourhood amenity include funfairs with blaring music in the Western car-park adjacent to Kambrook road despite the residential nature of the area. That noise also goes all day and overwhelms us inside our dwellings as well as outside in our gardens.

While investigating these issues, it is vital that you ensure that the racecourse also respects local law regarding sound levels with respect to the incessant droning of the race commentators every Saturday. Residents have a right to peaceful amenity without the incessant droning of the commentator over the PA system at unacceptable levels. After all, if it is legal and acceptable for the racecourse to broadcast its ‘soundtrack’ such that it is heard clearly in surrounding dwellings, then it is just as legal for surrounding dwellings to broadcast their own soundtrack at the same levels which will be clearly heard at the racecourse! Not something decent residents do, but that doesn’t seem to matter a jot to the racing club which treats residents with contempt.

I respectfully request that you take the matter further with the Melbourne Racing Club, and please keep me informed of any developments in this area.

Yours

xxxxxxxxx

 

February 10, 2015

Rezoning The Zones

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

baysideThe Glen Eira Council approach –

Crs Okotel/Hyams

That a report be prepared detailing how the state government intends to review planning zones and how this might impact Glen Eira.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

The Bayside approach –

That Council:

  1. Notes the published advice of Mr Brian Tee, former Shadow Minister for Planning received 25 November 2014 on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, confirming it will review the new residential zones to stop inappropriate development;
  2. Writes to the Minister for Planning seeking a meeting to brief the Minister regarding its 18 November 2014 resolution, and obtain his support in approving an Amendment pursuant to Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, that introduces the changes to the Bayside Planning Scheme not approved as part of Amendment C106;
  3. Write to the Hon Sue Pennicuik MLC, Member for the Southern Metropolitan Region seeking the support of the Australian Greens; and
  4. Receives a report in March 2015 providing an update on the meeting with the Minister, and to consider a standard planning scheme amendment (C140) and resourcing implications, as resolved by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 25 November 2014.
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »