GE Governance


We thought it fitting that for the final post of 2014, we revisit the secret introduction of the new residential zones. Fifteen months down the track readers can judge for themselves the total ineptitude and complicity of councillors in the duping their community.

The following extracts all come from statements made on the 13th August 2013 Council Meeting.

HYAMS – Went on to speak about the 3 new zones and that together they ‘will cover 95% of Glen Eira’ and ‘every resident of those zones will have their amenity protected better than before’.

LIPSHUTZ – Glen eira is the first council to ‘adopt these plans’ and that’s because they have ‘vision’ and that’s because years ago Akehurst and ‘his team’ saw that ‘we neeed to have distinct areas to protect our suburbs’. Because these plans already exist they were ‘able to translate very quickly’ into the new zones ‘and that’s a credit to our officers’….The zones are ‘protecting our neighbourhood, we are protecting our municipality and that’s important’.

MAGEE: Apart from commercial zones, there is now a ‘sense of security’ for developers because they know what they can do and get a loan easier. Developers can therefore plan better. Said that the 4 storey buildings around tram lines is only 2.2% ‘of our city’ and ‘you might actually struggle to find a block big enough’ to build 4 storeys because of ‘setbacks’ on top floor. So a lot of these could ‘end up being 3 storeys’. Said it was a ‘really good outcome for the residents of Glen Eira’…..Congratulated officers on ‘getting this through’ and didn’t think it ‘was a surprise because that’s the sort of work we do here’…’we are very good at what we do’. In the future council can say ‘no, it’s wrong’ and ‘go away’ to developers because they haven’t got it right. Also have to thank the state government in ‘being proactive and helping us get this in place’. ‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’

DELAHUNTY: ‘generally’ supports that this is a ‘good outcome’ but the ‘Minister sought different zoning’ for the Alma Club site and ‘that was done without any consultation with Council’ and she ‘finds this a little bit disappointing’ because he zoned differently there and could have also looked at the ‘old Open Space Strategy’. ‘It would have been a fantastic opportunity to have had that conversation’ with the Minister. The same goes for the ABC site. Also ‘at the start’ she had ‘reservations’ about the ‘lack of public consultation’. She ‘lost the argument’ on that one but ‘I have to say I deserved to lose the argument’ but since she wasn’t part of the 2010 consultation and ‘that doesn’t mean that the community’s views have necessarily changed’ so people got what they wanted. She’s just left with the ‘inkling of bad taste’ about the Alma Club and ABC sites

OKOTEL: congratulated for the ‘very hard work’ by Newton and Akehurst and team. It was a ‘very quick turnaround to make sure this happened’. The old system was ‘plagued by inefficiencies and uncertainties’ for planners and residents so it’s ‘pleasing’ that there are now height limits and that will ‘certainly’ eliminate the uncertainty. This is ‘exciting and well overdue step’. Said that she ‘maintains’ that a ‘consultation process would have been appropriate’ and that since this was in 2010 this wasn’t the direction prior to the  ‘submission being made to government’ and it ‘was a submission put to government and ultimately it was the government’s decision in terms of what the new zones look like’. But ‘despite that’ the decision is ‘very pleasing’

AND HERE’S PART OF COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC QUESTION

It is our firm belief that further consultation could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Important decisions were made in 2014. Very, very few could be said to have been in line with community views or aspirations.

  • Granting the MRC its wishes with the passing of the Caulfield Village Development plan for at least 2046 dwellings. At the subsequent VCAT appeal council once again caved in and basically watered down the few conditions it had imposed with the permit.
  • Permit after permit has been granted for major developments largely as a result of the introduction of the new zones with no progress whatsoever on parking management plans, environmental sustainable design, or in fact, introducing any amendments that would address the flow on effects of development.
  • Interest rate hikes still way above the CPI with another 6.5% increase – far more than neighbouring councils.
  • Back flips on the Caulfield Park conservatory indicating how little council resolutions mean and how much money is wasted on bogus ‘consultations’.
  • Still no local law that was promised a year and a half ago. All quiet on the western front in terms of: tree register; notice of motion; recording of council meetings.
  • More destruction of open space and trees for car parks – Centenary Park
  • Whilst Stonnington with the second least amount of open space is looking for an open space levy of 8%, Glen Eira with the least amount of open space only sought 5.7%. Council also did a back flip on its much publicised policy that all monies collected would be used for the ACQUISITION and improvement of new open space. Residents can now expect more of the same – ie. funds largely expended on capital works for existing open space and little or no purchase of additional open space.
  • More delays in major capital works and budget blowouts – Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – with no explanation of real costs provided to the community.

We are sure that readers can add to this list. As for the ‘positives’ and the future, we simply note that the gallery is now full of residents protesting development after development. It has taken a year for the impacts of the new zones to become clear and the result is that more and more residents are finding voice. We believe that this trend will continue, ensuring that councillors will eventually be held to account.

Best wishes to all for 2015!

2015 Happy New Year Strands Line Glow Dark Background

lp1lp2

Untitled

The last council meeting was fascinating in what it revealed about the (hidden) agendas for control within council. On one side we have officers and their councillor disciples, and opposed, on one particular issue, the old gang plus Okotel. The trigger for this ‘battle’ is the McKinnon Bowls Club and their attempt to survive by turning one of their bowling greens into a small soccer pitch that will be run by the same people who run the Caulfield Park small soccer pitch and who pay the bowls clubs for the privilege.

We wish to state at the outset:

  • We lament the demise of any community group or sporting club
  • We believe that Council should do everything in its power to ensure the viability of such clubs
  • We do not pass judgement however, on the merits of the McKinnon Bowls club position or objectives. All we are concerned with is the manner in which this issue is playing out and why it is the focus of so much time, cost, and effort by all concerned.

What we unconditionally denounce is the following:

  • That the issue should have taken up so much time when we believe that council has far greater priorities to attend to and that these have been given short shrift by all concerned. For example: last council meeting the ‘discussion’ on this item went for approximately 40 minutes. ‘Discussions’ on major planning applications were lucky to get 5 to 10 minutes each.
  • The continued hypocrisy and half baked information that is provided in officer reports and the overall inconsistency between arguments presented in various agenda items. We will comment on this in greater detail below.
  • Once again the report outstrips in length anything that would go into an officer’s planning report for council. We also get copies of correspondence, company records, etc. – all there to bolster up a very one sided argument.

Our take on the entire issue is:

  • Newton and Burke’s attempt to assert and maintain their control. This is revisiting the Ajax Senior Football club’s attempt to gain access to Princes Park. It would be anathema for Newton and Burke to allow clubs themselves to ensure their future, and god forbid, enter into any agreement which might benefit themselves and the local community. Allowing such events to happen is to diminish and erode the autocratic power, and continued ‘influence’ of officers. It also gives unprecedented power to the community whilst sidelining officers – another ‘no-no’ in Glen Eira
  • It is striking that at the last meeting this was the first time we can recall any member of the gang actually criticising an officer’s report. Esakoff really went to town. The pity is that such concern for community is not carried through on all sub-standard officer reports, or on issues of importance to the community by this enclave.
  • We can only speculate on the motives for this rear guard action against Newton and Burke by Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Okotel.

That is the background to this battle – or at least how we perceive it. For this council meeting we have another officer report (unnamed of course) but readers are directed to make ‘enquiries’ of the CEO.

The report is a wonderful piece of sleight of hand but entirely manipulative. Why? Because once again councillors are meant to make a decision when all of the information is not presented to them. The most important document that would compare the arrangements at Caulfield Park will NOT BE PRESENTED UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING NEXT YEAR! But it is expected that councillors decide on Tuesday night! As we’ve stated, since Caulfield Park Bowls Club has what the McKinnon Bowls Club wishes to introduce, surely such a document would be vital to any informed decision making? But no – it is held back.

We also have to comment on the utter inconsistency and hypocrisy of this report. Here are some quotes:

There has been no public consultation to date on the proposed change of use of Council land from bowls to a licence between the tenant and Powerleague Pty Ltd to provide small sided soccer on a commercial basis.

As noted above, the most recent consultation in 2002 resulted in community opposition. Council has a Community Consultation Policy. If Council contemplates any changes at Joyce Park at some point in the future, the Policy should be followed.

Suddenly, community consultation becomes essential to any decision making it would seem. Strange then, that in item 9.13 on Community Consultation For Pedestrian Crossing Locations, we get the following nonsense:

In Glen Eira’s case the community has had an opportunity to nominate locations when the walking strategy was being developed. Asking the community again to nominate locations would likely either cause confusion or unfairly raise community expectations that Council has the funds and will treat all nominated locations.

Additional community consultation now may also undermine the Walking Strategy as the community would have expectations that locations they raise would be treated above those indicated in the strategy. If locations in the strategy are put aside to address the new community nominated locations the strategy action to treat at least two locations each year may not be achieved and the identified priority walking routes would simply be delayed or not occur

The Strategy is a live document which will be reviewed in 2017. It is considered that it would be preferable to re-consult the community along the lines suggested in the request for this report as a prelude to the next revised Walking Strategy.

We simply love the ‘live document’ bit when history tells us that so few ‘policies’ ever see the light of day again and are allowed to gather dust (ie Road Safety Strategy, Review of Heritage, etc. etc.) In Glen Eira, ‘consultation’ is like a game of ping-pong. When it suits, this administration calls for its mock consultation and when it doesn’t suit, the claims are as above. Surely, with all the developments going on everywhere, with traffic increasing dramatically, there just might be some merit in receiving community input well before 2017. Plus, even with consultation in 2017, it could still take our wonderful council another couple of years to do anything about it!

Finally, it will be interesting to see the outcomes in this battle. Will the gang cave in and revert to their usual support of Newton? Will any councillor have the brains to defer the item again until ALL relevant information is provided? Will Newton bluff his way through and will his current disciples of Delahunty and co, support him to the hilt? It should be a fascinating evening. We only hope that it doesn’t go for 40 minutes and that all the applications due for decision get more than 5 minutes each in the limelight!

PS: Glen Eira councillors should be exceedingly pleased with themselves. In the space of this year alone (ie January to December) they will have granted permits for 1144 new dwellings. When we consider that only about 2% of applications arrive for Council consideration as opposed to the hired help (ie officers) then councillors are certainly keeping up their end of the bargain. To the best of our knowledge, only one application – Penang St. – has been refused. Thus councillors alone are responsible for a doubling of the average new dwellings per year in Glen Eira! Include what officers rubber stamp and the number is quadrupled at least. None of this of course is the result of the new zoning!!!!!!!!!!

Tuesday night’s council meeting is set down for another marathon and, in line with the usual tactics, major development applications are all crammed into this one single meeting – regardless of the fact that some applications go back as far as the 17th July 2014. So much for the 60 day decision time limit!

We wish to draw readers’ attention to the following:

  • Officers recommend another 149 dwellings to be granted permits
  • The trend of minimal notifications continues
  • Comments on internal amenity are practically non-existent. Where they do occur, readers will be amused to note that balconies count as part of ‘internal amenity’.
  • Not all applications provide information on the number of single bedroom and two bedroom dwellings. Consistency is non-existent throughout the reports.
  • Officer comments are repeatedly bereft of detail, statistics, or in fact logical consistency. Instead residents are assailed with waffle, and unsubstantiated claim after claim.
  • Waiving of car parking or loading bay requirements continues unabated.

We regard each and every one of these reports as not only sub-standard but more importantly, non informative and certainly not the basis upon which informed decision making should take place!

Here are some of the ‘low lights’ and please note the insipid and facile jargon used repeatedly –

 

14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of 55 dwellings (above basement car parking). 19 properties notified, 5 objections.

The proposed building has a street setback of 6.4 metres at ground floor, gradually increasing to 9.8 metres at the uppermost floor. Greater street setbacks will be required to ensure that the development maintains the built form rhythm of Bent Street.

Internal Amenity

To ensure the usability of balconies, a condition will require 8m² for each balcony that is clear of obstructions such as air conditioners.

Each unit is afforded storage space within the basement level. However, the storage capacity is below the required 6 cubic metres. A condition of approval will be require 6 cubic metres of storage space for each dwelling.

A number of ensuites and bathrooms are not afforded any daylight access and are sited internally within the building envelope. Where opportunities exist, a condition of permit will be included within the Appendix to require the provision of a skylight to improve the internal amenity of the dwellings.

++++++

 

14-16 Elliott Avenue – 4 storey, 21 dwellings, reduction in visitor car parking . 11 properties notified, 10 objections

Availability of on street parking, based on the conclusions of the parking and
traffic report prepared by the permit applicant’s traffic engineer…….

++++++

 

339-341 Neerim Road & 19-21 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE – 4 storey, 35 dwellings. Officer recommendation – 30 dwellings and increase in visitor parking to 4 spaces. (note 6 is the standard for 30 dwellings!) (20 properties notified – 35 objections)

A recommended condition is included to increase the front setback by 1.5m to bring the proposal closer to compliance with ResCode and improve the streetscape appearance of the proposal.

 

The recommended increased setbacks will reduce the overshadowing impacts and allow more daylight and sunlight to reach the adjoining dwellings and their rear yards.

 

Council’s Transport Planning Department has advised that the increase in traffic generated by the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on the current operation of Belsize Avenue or the surrounding road network.

++++++

 

1A Orrong Crescent and 632A Inkerman Road CAULFIELD NORTH – (19/8/2014) A four (4) storey building comprising three (3) shops and eighteen (18) dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of parking requirements and waiver of loading bay requirements. 13 properties notified, 10 objections. Recommendation is for 2 visitor car parks – standards require 3.

 

The subject site is zoned Commercial 1. All surrounding properties are located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone…..Subject to conditions, the proposed development is an acceptable response to the zoning, the site context, and will achieve an acceptable degree of fit whilst ensuring the amenity of the adjoining and nearby residential properties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

 

Given the Commercial Zoning and presence of only one residential abuttal, it is considered that in principal a four storey building is acceptable on the site;

 

The architectural style of the proposal is considered acceptable as the façade incorporates a reasonable level of visual interest through articulation of the elevations using balconies, architectural features and a contemporary style of architecture. Dwellings at ground floor fronting Orrong Crescent will provide an appropriate transition to the surrounding residential properties.

+++++

 

482-484 North Road ORMOND – (17/7/2014) A four (4) storey building comprising twenty-four dwellings (including a caretakers dwelling). Recommendation – 4 storey, 21 dwellings, Car parking at a rate of one per dwelling, 4 visitor parking spaces and 1 shop/caretakers dwelling parking space. 14 properties notified and 6 objections.

 

Given the context and emerging character of North Road, it is considered that a four storey building is generally acceptable on the subject site.The proposal will be taller than the adjoining single storey dwellings to the west but consistent with other four storey buildings in the area.

 

Council is aware that a tree was removed from the subject site prior to the lodgement of the application. Councils Landscape Assessment Officer has advised the removal of this tree is of no real concern. Future landscaping can be provided around the building. This is recommended

 

The most sensitive interface is to the south. This property contains a single storey dwelling with a driveway along its northern boundary. Whilst it is within the General Residential Zone, Anthony Street is also within the Ormond Precinct Heritage Overlay which could reduce future development expectations.

With this in mind, additional setbacks from the south are recommended as a condition of approval to respond to the interface. Inevitably the proposed building will continue to be visible from Anthony Street (and the surrounding area), however additional setbacks proposed will ensure an appropriate transition is achieved.

++++++

 

477 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – A four storey building with five dwellings and a shop. 7 properties notified and 2 objections. Recommendation – reduction of the car parking requirements for the shop use and waiver of loading bay requirements.

++++++

 

188-190 Tucker Road, BENTLEIGH – A 142 place Child Care Centre with a basement car park. Recommendation – 132 children. 14 properties notified, 15 objections and petition of 88 signatures.

 

 

By encouraging corner sites on secondary roads as preferred locations, policy anticipates side street access is likely and reasonable.

 

Familiarity of parents with the basement would occur over time and would be a normal part of orientation and induction for new parents. A Parking Management Plan which is recommended as a condition will require the education of parents and staff of the centre about the basement.

 

Council’s Transport Planners have indicated that the traffic generated by the proposal would have a minimal impact on both Tucker Road and Ellen Street.

Σ An average peak hour rate of 0.91 trips per child is estimated which accords with the rate prescribed in the Policy. Whilst this represents a noticeable increase in traffic volumes, it will not have a significant adverse impact on the operation of the local road network.

 

 

 

 

 

belsize+++++++++

A few points on the following image:

1. If the MRC claims that the recent Union Picnic was a Major Event, then where was their traffic management plan? Where were the street closures? Where were the information sheets distributed to residents?

2. Did Council know? Were they informed? Did they give tacit approval? Or was it a case of only officers knowing and councillors kept in the dark?

crr

487 Neerim Road just will not go away. Instead, this site epitomises everything that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira and how this council bends over backwards to accommodate developers.

Here’s a very quick history in order to refresh readers’ minds:

  • Abuts Riley Reserve and should have been bought and added to open space in the municipality. The land was eventually sold for just over $2m about a year ago.
  • Land is over 2000 square metres and includes many significant trees
  • In September 2014 council granted the applicant a ‘building envelope’ (ie the equivalent of a C60 Incorporated Plan which means no third party objection rights!). The land was then subdivided into 7 lots – some the size of 199 metres and only one lot of anywhere near 400 square metres.
  • A Section 173 agreement was put in place to enforce tree protection and to include a ‘tree management plan’.
  • Residents at the time objected that this was all very vague.

Now, two months later we suddenly find there is a new application in which reads –

Development and use of a child care centre, construction of a side fence in the Design and Development Overlay (DDO), removal of a tree in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO), and buildings and works in the Special Building Overlay (SBO)

Questions galore arise as a consequence:

  • How does a child care centre fit into what was supposed to be 7 double storey dwellings alone?
  • Have the lots been further sold off and residents can expect application after application for something entirely different to what the subdivision and ‘envelope plan’ permitted?
  • What does this say about any ‘agreement’ that is signed off by council?
  • Why was this ‘building envelope’ process even entered into by council instead of a normal planning permit?
  • What of all the other so called ‘conditions’ imposed by council (ie noise reduction, drainage) – will these now also bite the dust?
  • How many childcare centres are needed? – our count is 17 already within a one square km radius

And as the final insult to injury, remembering that this land could have been purchased and added to the open space network of this municipality, we present the destruction of trees that have occurred on this site in the past 5 years. Remember that Glen Eira does not have any tree protection policy that is worth a cracker! Saving trees is certainly not in the interests of developers!

november 2014 October 2009

What is troubling racing at Caulfield? Why is a prominent trainer like Rick Hore-Lacy packing up his swag and walking? Rick is a brilliant trainer, and a real gentleman.   He is still a young man; surely he doesn’t desperately need the $585,361.   Wither thou goest Mr. Hore-Lacy?

Rick’ loss to Caulfield will leave an immense hole in training that will be very hard, nigh impossible, to fill.

The question remains — what exactly is for sale? Land Victoria indicates 20 Booran Road, Caulfield East, is a large allotment immediately south of the land given to the Crown in exchange for the infamous “triangle”, which was part of Queen Victoria’s Crown Grant, but which is now set aside for the MRC’s high-density commercial development on the corner of Station Street and Normandy Road – directly over the road from the Caulfield Railway Station.   (Worth a damn lot more than Rick’s stable complex).

The Victorian Land’s Department also seems to think his stables are within the land controlled by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees. It’s my opinion that the land to the east of Kambrook and Booran Roads is freehold, and includes what was originally an extended Bond Street.

You can see the Land’s Victoria map:

PMHowever 20 Booran Road it is further south than indicated on the Government’s map. It can be positioned by a sign on the fence indicating that it is a “Community Stable Complex — 20 Booran Road”. Furthermore there are seven letterboxes in the fence, so exactly what did Rick Hore-Lacy’s “Australia-wide firm of valuers” value? It can’t be his goodwill, because that would have only a negligible value after he departs.

It seems Rick Hore-Lacy’s departure is yet another sign that we are watching the slow, painful death of racing at Caulfield. The MRC is now too embarrassed to publish crowd numbers, even for the Caulfield Cup. Please don’t go Rick, Caulfield needs you.

A rich and magnificent 150 year history of racing and sharing with the public is slowly being desecrated by an incompetent and avaricious Racing Club, while the inept Trustees waffle about the 65 hectares of “public recreation ground and public park” which they, in theory only, hold in trust for all members of the public.

booranlb

What is really going on at the Racecourse and what is Council and the Trustees doing about anything? There are countless questions that need asking and answering. Here’s some of them –

Hore Lacy Sale0001-1

  • Is this Crown land or freehold land?
  • If Crown land then what are the Trustees doing?
  • Valued at only $585+?
  • Is this a ‘lease’ or a ‘sale’?
  • What’s happened to getting rid of training?

And questions on another issue involve the Santa events at the centre. We have been informed that it appears as if those involved in running the show have set up caravans on site and are using these as accommodation for the duration of the event which goes for a month at least. Council’s Local Law states –

Section 310

Pitching a tent, erecting any temporary or permanent shelter or placing and occupying a caravan, campervan or shipping container on any, Council Land, public or private land for the purpose of camping or living. This law does not apply to the erection (with the land owner’s consent) of a temporary shelter to facilitate the preparation of meals associated with a religious practice or festival for a period not exceeding twenty-one days.

We therefore ask:

  • Have the operators been granted a permit by Council?
  • Has Council even been informed that this is happening?
  • Does Council even care!

« Previous PageNext Page »