GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

October 8, 2014

The Truth Shall Set Us Free!

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

Council and some of their supporters insist on propagating the myth that the introduction of the new zones has not been the impetus for far greater development, and density, in Glen Eira. The standard line has now become that nothing is different; that the introduction of the new zones merely reinforced what was council’s policy since 2002 and earlier. That in the end, the new zones represent a ‘neutral translation’. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Readers will know that Bent Street Bentleigh has now become the focus of some large combined property sales with the potential for huge developments. Bent St was previously designated as ‘housing diversity’. A large part of Bent St is now zoned Residential Growth Zone – meaning that 4 storey developments are likely to become the norm.

In the interests of historical accuracy, we want readers to reflect on the following VCAT case and development application. It dates from February 2012 and concerned an application at 23 Bent St for a 3 storey, 27 unit development. The land comprised a large block of 1,057 square metres. Council had refused the application. VCAT granted the permit. What is most telling however is the argument produced by Council against the development and the VCAT member’s comments. We cite directly from the judgement.

I note from council’s delegate report at page 7 “the construction of a three storey development is reasonable having regard to the zoning of the land is consistent with the state and local policy in terms of its strategic vision for the Bentleigh urban village”.

COMMENT – so two years ago a 3 storey development was considered ‘reasonable’. Now we have to assume that a 4 storey development is also ‘reasonable’

Council acknowledged that a site of this size could accommodate a three storey building however had concerns regarding the extent of the third level combined with its side setbacks, in that it would provide an overly dominant form particularly when viewed from the private open space of 25 Bent Street to the north which is a single storey dwelling.

COMMENT – 3 storeys was ‘dominant’ 2 years ago, and now 4 storeys is okay?

The maximum overall height of the building varies between 8.8 metres and 9.51 metres due to the fall of the site from south to north. It is acknowledged that the overall height largely exceeds the suggested 9 metre height contained in clause 55 but the permit applicant maintains that it is an appropriate and respectful height given the existing and preferred character of the neighbourhood which is identified in the LPPF for managed change to accommodate more intensive residential development.

COMMENT – So a building of 9.51 metres was in 2012 considered ‘dominant’. Even Clause 55 suggests a ‘9 metre height’. What we’ve got now is 13.5m!!!

The subject site is within the residential precinct 4 of the Bentleigh Activity Centre which at a policy level is directed towards increasing residential densities. This building will be the first introduction of a three storey building into the locality however, I am satisfied with the changes that I require via permit condition the proposal will set a standard for future redevelopment within the area whilst also sitting comfortably with its neighbours in the street

COMMENT: what was the ‘standard’ two years ago has therefore changed. The ‘standard’ now is 4 storey due entirely to the introduction of the new zones and the designation of this street as a Residential Growth Zone. The same applies to countless other streets throughout all of Glen Eira.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/197.html

PS: and like any sensible developer would, given the largesse of council, there has been an APPROVED amended application to turn this 3 storey development into a FOUR STOREY DEVELOPMENT. The developer got his amended application in October 2013 – after the zones were introduced!

 

October 5, 2014

The Cave-In Kings!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[11] Comments 

The bastardry, skulduggery, and pattern of capitulation which has dogged the entire Caulfield Village fiasco, is now complete. Council has once again caved in completely to the MRC/Developer judging by the VCAT order resulting from the August ‘mediation’. (full document uploaded here).

We remind readers that in May this year the Development Plan was rubber stamped by the majority of councillors. Attempting to simply save face, Lipshutz and Sounness put forward an amendment which was meant to ‘rectify’ the problems such as ‘fixing’ the vast number of miniscule balconies, and car parking issues. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/defending-the-indefensible/).

Well, surprise, surprise, surprise – the developer got practically everything he wanted! The two most important conditions (balconies and car parking) were practically tossed out the window and many other conditions eroded away in favour of the developer. All that council appears to have gained is to force the developer to provide more detailed information on soil depths so that the promised ‘garden of Eden’ will have enough soil to actually survive a year or two!

Which leads us to some pretty important questions:

  • Why didn’t council insist that this goes to a full hearing and not mediation if they were so adamant that their conditions were vital?
  • How much did this mediation cost ratepayers since we would bet that council employed barristers, planning ‘experts’ etc.?

We also must congratulate all those ‘backroom boys’ for their years of plotting, since this development is now exclusively OUT OF THE HANDS OF COUNCILLORS. Everything is now up to the ‘satisfaction’ of the ‘responsible authority’ – ie officers (exclusively). Hyams, Lipshutz, Pilling, Esakoff have done their work and handed the MRC their biggest prize ever to the detriment of every single resident living in Glen Eira.

Below is a summary that we’ve drawn up. On the left hand side is what the resolution of May 2014 stipulated. On the right hand side is what has now changed according to the VCAT order. These are all verbatim. Please read carefully and then ask yourselves whether or not you believe that Glen Eira is indeed the ‘cave in Kings’ of the State!!!

There’s undoubtedly a lot more buried in the technical detail of this order, so we welcome your views on what we’ve left out.

mrc

 

 

October 3, 2014

Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion: How Much?

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

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if the residents of Glen Eira had a council that was upfront, direct, and fully transparent? Wouldn’t it be fantastic if residents knew how much money was going down the drain, wasted, misspent on lawyers, stuff ups, and countless other ‘irregularities’? Alas, this is definitely not the way council functions.

Last council meeting saw a public question asked about Duncan Mackinnon pavilion. Readers will remember that apart from being years and years behind schedule, plus the fact that originally the stated price was around 6 million and then ballooned out to 10 million, there were plenty of other problems. Maxstra, the original main contractor ostensibly got the boot and another contractor replaced this company. The pavilion is still not finished! Here’s what the public question asked and council’s response –

What exact sums of money has Council paid to Maxstra Constructions prior to their dismissal as major contractor for the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion? Are funds still payable to Maxtra following the termination of their contract? And, what were the total invoiced costs for legal advice regarding the termination of the contract?”

“Maxstra Constructions have been paid $2.81 million. Whether any other payments are due them cannot be determined until all works are completed. As the balance of the work was taken out of Maxstra’s hands no legal costs have been incurred in relation to a termination because a termination has not occurred.”

Going back into history, it’s worthwhile considering the following as well.

  1. On the 22nd May 2012, council awarded the contract to Maxstra for the amount of $9,744,651.52
  2. On the 10th June 2014 a new contract was awarded to Fimma for $8,185,711.67

Doing our maths, things just don’t add up. If Maxstra has already been paid $2.81 million, with the possibility of receiving even more, then does this mean that the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion project is literally MILLIONS OVER BUDGET?

We also can’t accept that there will not be any further wrangling over these sums, which potentially means more lawyers, more courts, more settlements, and more cost to residents. Nor can we believe that a company like Fimma would undertake work for a set price and then be prepared to have that sum whittled way down.

For years now there has been a stony silence concerning this project – no upfront public announcements of what’s really going on. Just a buried sentence or two in annual reports (that 99% of people don’t bother to read). So, how about a simple, honest answer to these questions councillors?

  • How much over budget is Duncan Mackinnon pavilion?
  • Can residents expect more legal battles? And how much is this likely to cost?
 

September 30, 2014

Movement At The Station?

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

Thank you to one of our readers for alerting us to the changed Trustee website. Changes have occurred in that:

  • Minutes are now published
  • Financial reports are now published

However, the minutes clearly reveal the ongoing reluctance of the MRC to fully embrace the reforms recommended by the Auditor General. Leases remain in limbo with extension upon extension and master plans ‘progress’ at glacial pace. At this rate we have no real confidence that total reform is even close. It must also be borne in mind that on the topic of the removal of training there is stunning silence from all and sundry – including our councillor reps.

See the following links in order to access the minutes:

February 2014 – http://www.crrt.org.au/Portals/0/Downloads/Sep14/CRR_TRUSTEES_Minutes_180214.pdf

August 2014 – http://www.crrt.org.au/Portals/0/Downloads/Sep14/CRR_TRUSTEES_Minutes_070814.pdf

 

September 28, 2014

The Future & Hidden Agendas!

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

IMG

IMG_0001

 

September 25, 2014

What Could, And Should Have Been Done!

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

We have repeatedly stated that we believe that Glen Eira council has been derelict in its planning processes regarding the new zones. Apart from the lack of consultation, Council has not done the necessary strategic work to ensure the best outcome for residents. When major housing policies have not been touched for over a decade, and when reference documents in the planning scheme go back to 1996, then something is drastically wrong.

It also begs the question of why, and how, other councils such as Stonnington, could get the Minister to approve their zones that clearly are far superior to the ‘one size fits all’ model adopted by Glen Eira. It’s important that residents realise what could have been done, and hence, was NOT DONE!

Below, we present an overview of what Stonnington has achieved via its GRZ and RGZ schedules.

Stonnington has RGZ2 at 13.5metres height. It also has, in both the RGZ1 and RGZ2 Schedules, as well as ALL the GRZ schedules, the following requirement under site coverage –“Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area”. This is important because it means that underground car parking excavations have to be well contained within the site envelope. This helps avoid earth anchors onto neighbouring properties and problems with earth movements that might affect adjoining houses.

Stonnington also has countless other requirements for the GRZ zones in their respective schedules – none of which appear for Glen Eira. Here’s a sample –

Fences – Maximum height of 2 metres in streets in a Road Zone, Category 1. Other streets 1.2 metres maximum height.

Walls on boundaries – Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street.

Side and rear setbacks – For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from at least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height.

Landscaping – In addition to the requirements of B13, at least one canopy tree should be planted on the site.

The most telling difference however, and as we’ve stated before, is the number of GRZ zones that Stonnington applied and the HEIGHT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH. In other words, they have dissected their suburbs, planned according to recent developments, and didn’t adopt a ‘one size fits all’ approach as Glen Eira did. When we keep in mind that the heights for GRZ  in Glen Eira is an all encompassing 13.5 metres,(PS: oops, this should read 10.5m) it is remarkable what other councils could, and did, achieve. Here are the Stonnington GRZ schedules and their respective height limits –

Grz1 – 13.5m

Grz2 – none specified

Grz3 – 12m

Grz4 – 12 m

Grz5 – 9m

Grz6 – 11.5m

Grz7 – 10.5m

Grz8 – 12m

Grz9 – non specified

Grz10 – 9m

Grz11 – 12m

Grz12 – 9m

Grz13 – none specified

 

September 24, 2014

Myths, Mistruths & Dorothy Dixers! – #!

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

We report on one planning application from last night’s council meeting. Two others will follow. We ask readers to carefully consider the contradictions from all three sets of arguments; the repeated attempts at gagging free speech, and the basic mistruths that have been uttered time and again.

ITEM 9.4 – TUCKER ROAD

Delahunty moved to accept as printed. Seconded by Pilling.

DELAHUNTY: said that councillors had discussions on this and ‘went over it in great detail’. Application is to amend earlier permit and increase dwellings from 13 to 20. The Bentleigh area is a ‘very popular place to be’. ‘It’s a wonderful place to live’ and those living there are ‘very lucky’. ‘More people want to live there’. Councillors have taken into account objectors’ views but the permit should still ‘be issued’. A 2009 VCAT hearing allowed the 13 dwellings, so there’s ‘been some history’ and subsequently the land has been subdivided and now the application wants to extend the dwellings on the rest of the site. Meets height, mass under GRZ schedule. Parking and traffic is ‘within an acceptable limit‘. Amenity also ‘complies with ResCode standards’.

PILLING: there have been other 5 and 6 storey application in Murrumbeena and this is on a main road and is ‘quite acceptable‘. Development is ‘in the right area’.

HYAMS: councillors have a responsibility to the planning law and not necessarily to ‘what residents would like us to do’ even thought ‘this might be the easy thing to do’. ‘We need to apply planning law’. Said that ‘most of us’ take this ‘very seriously’. He ‘would like’ to refuse but the planning grounds don’t give the option of refusing – especially since the ‘permit that’s already there’. Whilst Tucker Road ‘isn’t a main road’ it is ‘certainly not a side street’. Height is within limits, and setback from front is better than permit granted. Side setbacks ‘aren’t as good as they were but still within acceptable parameter’. Conditions have increased setbacks and by removing study wall that makes it 3 bedroom and therefore more parking spots to be provided. Overshadowing will be the ‘same as current permit’. Regurgitated rest of officers report about waste management plan. etc.

LOBO: referred to Lipshutz saying on the Heritage Amendment (9.3) that ‘officers don’t get it right all the time’.

LIPSHUTZ jumped up with a point of order. ‘I did not say that’. (NOTE: LIPSHUTZ DID SAY THIS!). Claimed that he was ‘misrepresented’ by Lobo.

PILLING asked Lobo to retract comment. Lobo said ‘okay’.

LOBO: Asked why council says that ‘the new residential zones were established to maintain certainty for all?’ Said that ‘experience’ has shown him that ‘developers have more advantage’ than residents and that ‘residents are the downtrodden people in all this decision making’. Said that apart from the minimal change areas, the ‘flood gates have opened up’ and those ‘waiting in anticipation of these new zones have now come out of the woodwork’ and ‘anticipate’ increase and putting in their applications.

HYAMS: sprang up with a point of order saying that the Local Law requires ‘honesty’ in that Lobo is saying that the new zones are letting developments that previously weren’t and ‘we’ve said time and time again that that is not the case’.

PILLING: ‘I agree with’ Hyams and ‘what you are saying is incorrect’.

LOBO: said that he is ‘free for my opinion’.

PILLING: ‘you need to make factual statements’ if you’re speaking on behalf of council. Said that Lobo can ask the ‘director to clarify’ if he wants’.

LOBO: answered that he couldn’t ‘clarify because we have not gone to public consultation’. And ‘because it is a law, I have to agree with this’. Said that ‘internally, Cr Okotel and I did not agree’.

PILLING: told Lobo to ‘speak to the application’.

HYAMS: another point of order that what Lobo was saying about disagreeing with council on the need for consultation that ‘that’s not true either’.

LOBO: ‘it is true. Ask Cr Okotel’.

PILLING: told Lobo that he had already ‘corrected’ him on the information and that he should talk to the application.

LOBO: said that Hyams is ‘interpreting all the time’.

PILLING: again tried to stop Lobo while Lobo kept interrupting and saying that people should be allowed to talk.

HYAMS: said that Lobo is accusing him of ‘racism’.

LOBO: ‘I didn’t say that. I speak 5 languages’.

PILLING: again asked Lobo to ‘speak to the application’.

LOBO: said there is overshadowing. Residents also said that privacy, devaluation of property is no concern to the ‘three tiers of government’. ResCode is ‘simply a joke’ in terms of parking. Said that Guy’s powers were ‘extraordinary’.

PILLING: interrupted again asking that he stick to the application.

LOBO: said that his comments ‘were true’

PILLING: didn’t want discussion on ‘political stance’ but wanted discussion on the application. Lobo kept interrupting and Pilling said that he would tell him to stop unless he spoke about the application. Lobo claimed that Pilling was ‘pre-empting’ what he was about to say. Pilling disagreed.

LOBO: said he had a call from a resident who on talk back radio asked why the zones ‘had been introduced’ and that guy had said ‘it is the fault of the Glen Eira City Council’.

PILLING: again asked Lobo to stick to the application.

LOBO: claimed that all this can be ‘dirty, selfish’

LIPSHUTZ: another point of order and asked Pilling to tell Lobo to ‘sit down’

Lobo then needed a time extension. The motion was put and seconded by Delahunty. On the vote only Sounness and Delahunty voted for time extension. Motion was lost and Pilling told Lobo to sit down.

MAGEE: said that this application only ‘survives’ because it’s on Tucker road which is more than a residential street. The ‘impact before and after’ is ‘minimal’. Shouldn’t condemn developers for wanting to ‘maximise return’ because they also ‘maximise opportunities for families’. Tucker is the ‘entry point’ into Glen Eira because it is ‘most affordable’. ‘If we are to save the small suburban streets’ then this kind of application has to be ‘accommodated’. Although ‘not ideal’ it in the end ‘does comply’. On the ‘positive side’ it gives ‘opportunity’ for families to move ‘into the greatest suburb in Australia’.

HYAMS: said that Lobo had talked about overshadowing and he wanted Akehurst to say whether the overshadowing was ‘worse’ than the current permit.

AKEHURST: said that with the conditions imposed the overshadowing is ‘no greater’ than what the permit allowed.

SOUNNESS: found the application was ‘consistent with good, orderly planning’.

DELAHUNTY: said that objectors should be reassured that the conditions council has imposed ‘protect them from no greater harm’ than the original permit. Said that ‘people have to live somewhere’ and that we ‘can’t prejudge what type of people might move in’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST.

 

 

September 23, 2014

Arrived At A Street Near You!

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

Untitled

penangbent

mavho

 

 

September 21, 2014

Why They Can’t Be Trusted!

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

Please read the following extracts from Item 9.9 of the current agenda (open space levies) very, very carefully. We believe that it shows in spades:

  • The total incompetence of this council, and
  • Why they simply cannot be trusted

Continuation of the policy of 25 June 2013 could potentially undermine Amendment C120 in so far as it directs the expenditure of all funds on the provision and capital works improvements to new open space rather than also improving existing open space which will be used by the future population. Councillors have received an independent briefing in relation to this advice.

And the ‘recommendation’ –

Abandons the policy introduced before the 2014 Open Space Strategy entitled ‘Use of Public Open Spaces Contributions Policy’ dated 25 June 2013.

In case people have forgotten what this council policy promised we reiterate –

Council will only spend Public Open Space contributions it receives after 1 July 2013 to acquire and improve land to serve as additional public open space.1 (including the former Glen Huntly Reservoir)

Council will not spend Public Open Space contributions it receives after 1 July 2013 to improve land which is already public open space. (25th June, 2013)

With much fanfare, beating of the chest, and promise after promise, March 18th 2014 saw the following resolution (and promise) repeated –

Crs Pilling/Lipshutz

That Council;

  1. Delete the last sentence in section 8.3B of the Strategy “Funds will also need to held for upgrades to existing open space”.
  2. Adopt the Glen Eira Open Space Strategy.
  3. Confirm the existing Policy adopted on 25 June 2013 that “Council will only spend Public Open Space contributions to acquire and improve land to serve as additional public open space”.

So what does all this mean?

  • You create a strategy, an amendment, and a policy and promise the earth only to discover innumerable errors later on! So instead of amending the strategy and policy, the solution is to renege on the promise made to residents!
  • That the old system will prevail and that instead of using the accumulated levies exclusviely for the ACQUISITION OF NEW OPEN SPACE, council will redirect this money into more concrete plinths, more pavilion redevelopments and given their past record, a minimum of new open space. Note that only 2 house blocks in Packer Park have been added to open space in the last 14 years – and that occurred because of the huge public outcry. Council’s first option was to sell the bowling green for residential development!
  • The total incompetence of those responsible for overseeing the open space strategy and the drafting of the amendment. How many more errors will be picked up after the fact before someone is held to account?
  • Council resolutions, policies, strategies are all totally meaningless. Promises are made and then broken willy nilly.
  • All credibility and faith in the competence of this council is shot to pieces.
 

September 19, 2014

The Great Unwashed Of Bentleigh, Carnegie……

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

We are becoming increasingly concerned over what, to all intents and purposes, appears to be the social divide that is occurring within the municipality. Whilst Bentleigh, Carnegie, and other areas are allowed to go to the dogs, certain areas appear to have the ‘protected species’ assigned to them – many being in Camden Ward!

The latest agenda features 2 applications that would seem to endorse this view. One is for a 5 storey building of 3 shops and 57 dwelllings in Neerim Road, Carnegie. It is zoned Mixed Use (ie no height limits) and located in the Murrumbeena Neighbourhood Centre. Officers recommended a permit and the waiving of 4 visitor car parking spots.

The second application is Hawthorn Road, North Caulfield. It is zoned Commercial (again no height limits) and is seeking a permit for 6 storeys, shops and 40 dwellings. Both applications are surrounded by other Commercial zones and the General Residential Zone. Yet, officers decided to reject this second application outright and to pass the Neerim Road one.

It should also be borne in mind that council’s approach is often to chop off one floor and a handful of apartments and hence grant approval. This hasn’t been done for the Hawthorn Road application. So whilst the application seems to meet all the planning scheme requirements in terms of zoning, height, and even ‘mass’ it doesn’t get the nod. Instead we find some remarkable statements that are applied to one site, which didn’t enter council’s consciousness on applications in other areas. For example: council now appears worried about setting a precedent! They are also concerned about drainage, when countless applications are passed in Carnegie resulting in basement car park flooding – and this is when this report contains an engineering recommendation that the developer pay for extra drainage. No such additions have appeared in the countless officer reports for these other areas!

Thus we have to ask:

  • Are parts of Glen Eira being allowed to become part of the ‘great unwashed’?
  • Is Camden Ward being accorded ‘privileges’ that other areas aren’t? If so, why?

Finally, we’ve uploaded the two zoning maps for these applications and ask residents to ponder the ‘differences’ which results in one application being granted a permit and the other one a rejection by planners. We also wish to state that we are NOT endorsing either application. We make no comment on the quality of the proposed plans. We are simply concentrating on the officer comments and the resulting recommendations.

Untitled

caulfield

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »