GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

February 5, 2015

Council Versus The Auditor General

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

On Tuesday night a public question was asked regarding what our councillor representatives on the Racecourse Reserve Trustees were doing to ensure that the Auditor General recommendations were being fully implemented. Council’s response to this question is quite literally astounding. What is even more astounding is that not one councillor had the courage to stand up and either query this response or, to disassociate him/herself from this nonsense.

The response is in direct conflict with the Auditor General’s report in all facets. Either the Auditor General does not know what he is talking about, or council does not have a clue as to its responsibilities to the community and to proper governance. Here are some quotes from the AG Report –

The management of the reserve was vested in a group of trustees who represented the government, the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and the local municipality—Glen Eira City Council. (page vii)

Under the Crown grant, 15 trustees are appointed by the Governor in Council to manage the reserve—six each representing government and the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and three representing Glen Eira City Council. (page ix)

More recently, the government and Glen Eira council trustee representatives have recognised that governance standards in line with contemporary practice should be introduced. (page xii)

The land was permanently reserved in the 19th century for three purposes—a racecourse, public recreation ground and public park. Management of the reserve is vested in 15 trustees—six government nominees, six Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) nominees and three council nominees representing the local municipality, Glen Eira City Council. (page 1)

Within the trust, there have been differing views about how these competing uses can be reconciled. More recently, this has created tensions between trustees representing the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and those representing the government and Glen Eira City Council. (page 26)

The make-up of the trust enables MRC, Glen Eira City Council and state government views to be considered as part of its decision-making processes. Until recently, however, members of the local community had no direct means of engaging with trustees on matters of importance to them. They had to rely on council representatives to present their views. (page 28)

Each and every one of these Auditor General statements establishes that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff are REPRESENTATIVES of Glen Eira Council and therefore the local community. They are ‘directed’ by Council in the interests of the local community.

Yet, the response to the public question denies this obligation, and flies in the face of not only the Auditor General’s report, but community views and expectations. If Hyams, Lipshutz, and Esakoff do NOT represent the community via council, then they should be sacked immediately or have the good grace to resign forthwith.

Here is the question and the official Council ‘response’ – it cannot be deemed an ‘answer’!

 

“In September the Victorian Auditor General published the report on the Management and Oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. I attach copy 3B of page 38 “Access and signage issues at the reserve” and I ask you to note that there are 22 out of 24 indicators of inadequate access. Please tell me what instructions our councillor members of the C.R.R.T., Cr Esakoff, Cr Hyams and Cr Lipshutz are being given at council to overcome this undesirable situation as the VAG in Clause 6 Page 39 recommended the need to “upgrade public access and improve signage at all entry access points and within the reserve to a standard that improves safety and encourages increased community use.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Although three councillors are trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, they serve as trustees in their own rights, not as representatives or delegates of Council, and therefore, Council does not instruct them.”

 

February 1, 2015

Agenda Items 2015 – #2

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

Item 9.2 – 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie – Heritage Protection

This item raises heaps of issues as to the value that council places on heritage. The property is Frogmore in Carnegie. The site has no heritage listing dating back to the 1996 Council assessment. The latest ‘review’ recommends Heritage listing via an overlay. The large site has been bought by Jewish Care and residents fear that demolition of the building would consequently ensue.

Officer reports are there to provide ‘guidance’ and ‘advice’ and ultimately we suggest, to proffer specific and clear recommendations. In this instance the recommendation is for ‘council to decide’. Perhaps, well and good, if the report is fair, unbiased, and comprehensive. We don’t believe that this is the case in this instance.

Basically, two ‘options’ are provided. But, it is in the wording of these options, that all semblance of objective, fair appraisal, is missing.

Recommendation ‘A’ reads –

One option would be to act on the recent reassessment and initiate a planning scheme amendment process to include the property in the heritage overlay.

Council would need to ask the Minister for Planning to place interim protection over the site. Given the previous assessment that heritage was not appropriate, no objections being raised for many years and that a new owner has acted in good faith on the basis of existing controls, there is no assurance that the Minister would grant such an interim control.

If interim controls were approved, the Council would need to exhibit an amendment to apply a heritage overlay. Submissions could be made for or against. The matter would go to an independent panel which could consider all submissions. Again, given the original process and that the owner has acted in good faith on Council’s decision not to place a heritage overlay, there is no assurance that the panel would support the amendment. Any amendment would need to be approved by the Minister. The process would take approximately 18 months.

COMMENT

  • ‘heritage was not appropriate’. Quite misleading we suggest since the ‘criteria’ applied by council was that Heritage listings be part of ‘an identified historic area’. Yet all the legislation and even Council’s own Planning Scheme ostensibly contradicts this application of policy. Section 21.10 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme makes it absolutely clear that single sites may also be worthy of heritage protection – A number of areas and individual properties comprehensively demonstrate important eras in the growth of Glen Eira and survive in a reasonably intact state.
  • The officer report even admits that Frogmore received a 1996 rating of “C” – just not the C+ that placed it in a ‘historic area’. Readers should remember that this is Carnegie after all, and given land development history, ‘expendable’!
  • Repetition of the ‘owner acting in good faith’ is arguably entirely irrelevant to the question of whether a building is worthy of heritage protection or not.
  • The presence or absence of ‘objections’ is also entirely irrelevant. With little publicity, and certainly little opportunity for residents to have direct input into council matters it is not surprising that Frogmore and its potential heritage status has been enveloped by silence. Further, several other comments made in the officer report could also act as a major deterrent to public involvement– ie the expense of obtaining private heritage advice by any interested resident.
  • The Minister’s approval would be required regardless of the two options provided in the report. According to The Heritage Act, – After considering the report of the Heritage Council, the Minister may make any determination in relation to a recommendation that the Heritage Council could have made under Division 3. Hence, ‘there is no assurance’ that even with Heritage Council approval the Minister would give it the nod!

Recommendation ‘B’ states –

Option B: Not re-open the heritage issue at a municipal level but abide by whatever decision is made by the Heritage Council.

The heritage process of 1996 – 2003 considered all properties in Glen Eira. It placed 3,893 properties under heritage controls. It was a very public process with many stages of consultation. It provided opportunities for views to be put for or against heritage classification of any property in the municipality. The views being expressed now might more appropriately have been expressed during the seven year process and been taken into account and determined then or in the eleven years since then.

It is reasonable for prospective purchasers to act on the basis of the Council’s planning scheme, especially given that the heritage status of every property in the municipality had been considered and had been decided. It would be unreasonable to change the rules after the purchaser had acted in good faith and committed significant funds.

COMMENT

  • Is this Seaview revisited? Council stuff ups again?

The suggested wording of the ultimate motions also require comment. Here is what an Option ‘B’ resolution would contain –
That Council:

(a) note the heritage process over the period 1996 to 2003 which provided the appropriate opportunity to put views for or against the heritage status of 1Wahgoo Road, Carnegie;

(b) note that the current owner of the property has acted in good faith and committedsignificant funds on the basis of Council’s planning scheme; and

(c) forwards the attached consultant report to the Heritage Council and agrees toabide by the Heritage Council’s decision in this matter.

In our view parts (a) and (b) of this motion are inappropriate and entirely irrelevant. If anything, they undermine to a great extent the ‘neutrality’ of any potential Heritage Council decision and thus potentially sway the argument in favour of rejection. We also wonder whether the 1996 policy was simply an early version of Amendment C87, where sites for Significant Character Overlays were all selected by officers with no allowable input by councillors or residents!

There are many other comments scattered throughout this report that need to be questioned. The most glaring concerns the fact that Frogmore is not ‘visible’ from Wahgoo Road. This is an argument for not having a Heritage listing. Funnily enough many of the the most prized Heritage properties in Glen Eira are also not ‘visible’ from the main road – Ripponlea being the perfect example.

 

January 15, 2015

More From The MRC!

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

MRC lodges plan for outdoor cinema at Caulfield Racecourse

  • Andrea Kellett
  • January 15, 2015 12:00AM

The Melbourne Racing Club has asked Glen Eira Council for permission to run the summer cinema at Caulfield Racecourse.

It would be located between the racecourse administration building and the racetrack and cater for up to 500 people a session.

Consultants have lodged a planning permit application and details include:

— A mobile 7m high by 11m movie screen on the back of a flat deck truck which would be parked in position each screening night;

— Guests to view movies from the lawns between dusk and 1am;

— Parking to be provided in the Guineas carpark;

— Food and beverages to be available to buy and users to bring or buy picnic meals.

The consultants’ report describes the outdoor cinema as a “unique entertainment experience”.

Melbourne has a number of outdoor cinemas, among them the Moonlight cinema at the Royal Botanic Gardens, December — March; and Ben & Jerry’s open air Cinemas at St Kilda’s South Beach Reserve, November-December.

The MRC wants a permit to run its outdoor cinema between November and March, with an option to use the land for an outdoor cinema throughout the year.

MRC spokesman Jake Norton said ticket prices had not yet been decided.

“No. The concept, if the application is successful, would not be rolled out until next summer. Given that timing, as well as the fact that the application has yet to be approved, practical plans around ticketing, event logistics, dates and times, the product itself, content, associated food and beverage offering etc are still some way off,’’ Mr Norton said.

Glen Eira Council granted the MRC a permit for a permanent $3 million super screen at Caulfield Racecourse last year.

That screen displays race day activities including live video feeds, race replays, race day information and sponsor information.

++++++

 COMMENT

The following sentences are taken directly from the formal application. We urge readers to carefully note the hyperbole, the spin, and what this could mean for residents. Most importantly, we have to again question what has happened to the so called ‘agreement’ between Council and the MRC and the role of the Minister and the Department in this entire episode. The standout issues as far as we can see are –

  1. Public Transport does not operate till and after 1am weekdays
  2. Does extending the area for a liquor license fly in the face of the alcohol ban and how would the local constabulary view this attempt?
  3. Is Crown Land again being used for private commercial gain – especially when the MRC claims to be a ‘non-profit’ organisation?
  4. Have the Trustees signed off on this latest effort? Did they give permission for the application to the Department?
  5. Will the centre potentially be used for car parking?
  6. And will council once again cave in – either on the night, or at VCAT?

Here are the quotes:

Access to and parking at the racecourse is available with minimal impact to the community

The proposed outdoor cinema makes use of an entertainment facility that would otherwise lie idle during the proposed hours of operation.

Melbourne Racing Club is the custodian of a range of land holdings associated with and including the Caulfield Racecourse. The land holdings are a combination of freehold and Crown Land. The site which is the subject of this application is known as 31 Station Street and is contained within Crown Land referred to as Allotment A as Caulfield, Parish of Prahran.

The (Glen Eira) MESS notes at clause 21.01-2 that Caulfield Racecourse and Monash University are facilities of metropolitan significance and both are of major importance to the local economy. Further, Clause 21.02-1 Key influences – Advantages and Opportunities, recognises Caulfield Racecourse as a landmark and regional facility that contributes to the attraction and ‘liveability’ of the municipality.

Clause 21.06-2 identifies the objectives and strategies in relation to Business within the municipality, including:

  • To encourage more local employment and attract more local spending in partnership with business
  • Encourage new and innovative retail and commercial activities to establish in the municipality having regard to the hierarchy of centres as well as opportunities to developer appropriate freestanding sites for suitable retail or commercial use.

It is submitted that the proposal will achieve the following key imperatives of the SPPF by:

  • Encouraging a sue that meets the communiy’s needs for entertainment and providing a net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.

With the event proposed at the northern end of the subject site, patrons are within walking sitance of the Caulfield Railway Station interchange (with train, tram and bus services available). The Guineas car park which adjoins the proposed event location will also be available to patrons who choose to drive.

…..any overflow parking requirements can be provided by Melbourne Racing Club’s numerous other car parks.

DPI

 

January 12, 2015

Compare & Contrast – #4

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

In Glen Eira contracts awarded under tender are invariably decided behind closed doors via the in camera provisions of council meetings. Residents are not even always provided with information as to the outcome of these tenders. Not only does Glen Eira not provide any information on WHY and HOW the tenders are awarded, nor why company ‘A’ was successful as opposed to company ‘B’, but the performance criteria themselves are kept secret, the officers involved are secret, and the voting is secret.

We’ve reported previously on how other councils go about their tender decisions. Many publish full accounts of the companies involved; the scores they achieved against the criteria, and the individuals involved. Further, these are published in full in council agendas and minutes. Glen Eira maintains its cloak of secrecy.

This recent tender from Monash council caught our eye for several reasons. Readers should note the following:

  • The relative speed with which flooding issues have been addressed, and
  • How developer levies on drainage lessen the cost to ratepayers.

We have uploaded the full report HERE

 

December 30, 2014

Councillors – Who Do They Really Represent?

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

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.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

December 28, 2014

The Year In Review

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

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

 

December 23, 2014

How To Win Friends……

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[7] Comments 

lp1lp2

 

December 15, 2014

It Can Be Done!

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

Untitled

 

December 13, 2014

The Battle For Control

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

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!

 

December 12, 2014

Here We Go Again!

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

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »