GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 18, 2014

Southwick: Today’s Hansard

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

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—The matter I raise is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, and the action I seek is that the minister adopt the recommendations outlined in the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office report entitled Management and Oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

The report outlines that the trust has not been an effective manager of the reserve and that insufficient attention has been paid to fulfilling the potential for community use of this reserve.

It is important to mention that Caulfield Racecourse is one of most prestigious racecourses in Australia. It brings significant revenue into the state through racing and events. It hosts significant racing events, including the Caulfield Cup and the Caulfield Guineas, and was a training home of the legendary Black Caviar. In addition to a racecourse, the 1949 Crown grant designated the land as being for two other purposes: for public recreation and as a park. It would be fair to say that, despite the efforts of many, the trust has failed to deliver on the recreation and open space benefits to our community, which the report highlights. Without elaborating on the failure by the Labor government to properly administer land swaps and to take up recommendations from previous reviews, we are now in a great position to finally implement a management plan by taking up these recommendation to the benefit of both racing and community use.

Members would have heard me advocate in this place for more community use of the 54 hectares of land. We have seen racecourses, such as Happy Valley Racecourse, also having strong sporting facilities and golf courses in the middle of their reserves. We are perfectly placed to do a similar thing at Caulfield. I place on the record acknowledgement of the efforts of the current Melbourne Racing Club administration, which has demonstrated a willingness to adopt a plan that incorporates better public use of the facility. In 2012 I worked with the club and the City of Glen Eira to deliver a $1.8 million upgrade of the centre, including barbecue and jogging facilities. That project was funded by the racing club to encourage community use of the reserve.

Despite having done all of that, as we have known and as this report highlights, the community does not fully utilise this space because it is hard to get to. Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is desperately calling out for an active space plan to bring people into the centre of the reserve. We could do this through proper community consultation, which this report also suggests. I thank the minister and the current Department of Environment and Primary Industries administration for their commitment to fixing the inherent problems in managing this reserve and the work they have done so far with the trust.

The recommendations of the report include more rigorous oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve; adopting a governance framework consistent with contemporary standards, determining the trust’s responsibilities, powers and obligations; a community engagement strategy that can identify the needs and will ultimately result in a land management strategic plan that contains a clear and measurable outcome for use of Crown land consistent with the grant; and the exploration of alternative management arrangements for the reserve so it can be better placed to meet the needs of the racing and local community into the future.

Ultimately we are looking for the best outcome for all—the best outcome for residents and the community while keeping in mind that it is a racecourse.

I call on the minister to adopt all of these recommendations in this report. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get things right in this unique and valuable space known as the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. I will give the community my undertaking to continue to fight for better community benefit in this great space.

 

September 11, 2014

Our Councillors At Work – #2

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

We’ve received a comment from a resident concerning the Penang Street application and think it deserves to be put up as a post for 2 reasons:

  • So that residents may adjudge for themselves the kind of ‘representation’ they get from their elected members
  • The total impotence of these councillors and the continual spin that is perpetrated – ie. continually passing the buck onto vcat, the state government, etc. Utter hogwash we say. It is councillors who accepted the new zones; it is councillors who have the power to alter it and it is councillors in the end who are continually failing their constituency in so many areas.

Here’s the comment.

Well, the mayor came to Penang Street to listen ( I use the term loosely) to residents’ concerns about the development at 2-4 Penang Street. He clearly has not read or has chosen to ignore this decision. Made it very clear that traffic considerations would not be taken into account. Just one in a long list of things he said were not Councils’ concern or responsibility (eg drainage which he admitted has not been upgraded to cope with another 2011 incident). Completely dismissive of any prospect of revisiting or even tweaking the current scheme to provide additional protection for residential amenity. Said at least three times that we should keep “the politicians” (ie state representatives and candidates) out of it, notwithstanding that he simultaneously played the powerless Council card (ie it is all the state government’s planning scheme). I have read some of the material on here and thought it must be an exaggeration. But we got the same routine I have read here about consultation in 2002 and 2010, outcomes could have been worse if had consulted, how council has protected us all from unlimited height, blah, blah. Just as well he has resigned from the Greens, there must be a lot of grassroots members regretting campaigning on his behalf. Riding a push bike to the meeting really isn’t enough. Very disappointed by it all – not that I expected his to agree – but his complete dismissiveness of the concerns of those who put him in power was very disheartening.

PS: The Planning Scheme MUST be reviewed every 4 years, and within one year of the acceptance of the Council Plan. The Glen Eira Planning Scheme was last reviewed in 2010, and the Council Plan was last voted on at the Council Meeting of 10th June 2014. Previously it has been voted on at the 11th June 2013 meeting. Throughout this period, no planning review has been undertaken in the public limelight; no documents tabled as to findings of any such (internal) review, and certainly no public consultation.

The consistent and bogus claim by Council that residents were very well informed as to housing policy (ie minimal change and housing diversity) and that ‘extensive consultation’ took place in 2010 is literally laughable. We’ve uploaded here the euphemistically entitled ‘Discussion Paper’ on the Planning Scheme Review of 2010. Readers need to ask themselves several basic questions:

  • To what extent does this document actually INFORM residents?
  • To what extend does this document whitewash all the central concerns (ie the totally biased representation of Structure Plans)
  • Please note the list of ‘policies’ and it should be borne in mind that many of these ‘policies’ date back to neanderthal times and have not been ‘reviewed’ much less updated!
 

September 11, 2014

Our Councillors At Work!

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

For the past 5 or 6 years residents have made it abundantly clear that their top priorities and dissatisfaction with council, as stated in the annual Community Satisfaction Surveys, revolve around three basic issues –

  1. Planning
  2. Traffic/parking
  3. Consultation

Without a Notice of Motion, the only way to get something onto the agenda is via a Request for a Report. So, how industrious, relevant, and conscientious have our elected representatives been in making sure that the above 3 issues are addressed and improvements made?

We’ve gone through this year’s listing of all Requests for Reports and find that of the 18 voted upon (with one being rejected) a mere 1 or 2 could in any way be seen as addressing the issues that residents have nominated as their priority. Mind you, this is not to say that we are against social housing, gay rights, etc. We simply cannot believe that councillors see these as the most important issues which continue to confront the municipality. So far this year, we’ve had reports on foxes and other vermin, sister cities overseas, and so forth. Really earth shattering issues! Even when something comes up that could be seen as important (such as minimum sizes for apartments) the officers’ reports invariably recommend a ‘do nothing’ approach and this is blithely accepted by councillors!

Surely it is time that councillors turned their minds to actually serving the community and demanding action on all those things they were elected to achieve instead of either playing politics and bagging Labor or the Libs, or actually doing something that will redress the inequities of the planning system and the chaos that is parking and traffic. When development applications take 5 minutes to decide, and discussion on requests for reports drag on interminably because of cheap point scoring, then there is something drastically wrong.

Below is a list of the reports voted upon – in no particular order. Combined, these surely make for some pathetic reading!

Federal Auditor-General Investigation

Crs Delahunty/Lobo

That the Glen Eira City Council file of relevant correspondence regarding the ‘Safer Streets Program’ be forwarded to the Federal Auditor-General Ian McPhee to assist his review.

Crs Okotel/Hyams

That a report is prepared that provides information on how Council supports community groups including information on:

  1. programs that encourage and strengthen existing community groups.
  2. approaches to encourage community groups to respond to emerging community interests and needs.”

Crs Lobo/Okotel

That a report be prepared on what help is available in Glen Eira to support and help those in our community suffering from alcohol and drug addictions.

Crs Delahunty/Lobo

That a report be prepared detailing the methods that other Victorian Councils, particularly the Greater Geelong City Council have sought to support and advocate for marriage equality for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (GLBTI) people and how the City of Glen Eira may seek to do the same for the GLBTI people in our community.

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That a report be prepared on the likely effects on Glen Eira of rate rises being capped at the CPI, as the State Opposition has announced it intends to do should it win government.

Crs Magee/Hyams

That a report be prepared on:

(1) The possibility of Council acquiring the vacant land at 846-848 Centre Road, Bentleigh East directly adjacent to the Centre Road Kindergarten.

(2) The potential impact to families in Glen Eira of a change in funding of Kindergarten hours in the recently released Abbott budget.

(3) The projected need for Kindergarten places in Glen Eira in the next 10 years including an estimate of which areas of the municipality this need will fall in.

(4) An assessment of potential expansion sites within the municipality and the potential to forward plan for these expansions.

Crs Sounness/Delahunty

That a report be prepared on the mechanisms available to Council to improve the provision of affordable and accessible social housing.

Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

That a report be prepared on the benefits of whatsoever kind (if any) in establishing and maintain sister city relationships. The report should identify any obligations and costs that may be incurred by the Glen Eira City Council in establishing and maintaining such relationships.

Crs Lobo/Sounness

That a report be prepared on the potential to establish a sister city relationship with a city in mainland China given that in the Indian/Pacific Century Australia sits astride both the Indian and Pacific Oceans and given that China is a major importer of Australian primary products compared to any other countries. (motion lost)

Crs Okotel/Lipshutz

That a report be prepared addressing;

  1. The impact of violence against women upon the community in Glen Eira, and
  2. How Council can improve its responses to addressing violence against women.

Crs Delahunty/Magee

That a report be prepared to council with information on the proposed privatisation of the Alfred Health provided aged care facilities in Caulfield. The report to specifically note the number of public beds currently provided by the state funded facilities and the potential impact on the Council’s aged care facilities of the privatisation.

Crs Sounness/Hyams

That the City of Glen Eira request the Executive of the Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) to reverse it’s decision to exclude the Victorian Greens from participating in the Super Forum at the Melbourne Town Hall on 14 August 2014.

Crs Sounness/Okotel

That a report be prepared on the statistics and trends in observed off leash dog walking occurring outside declared dog off leash walking areas.

Crs Okotel/Esakoff

That a report be prepared detailing:

(a) What measures Council takes to address dumped rubbish in “hot spots” within high density areas; and

(b) What measures Council can take to address dumped rubbish more efficiently and effectively in existing and new anticipated hot spot areas including additional costs associated with these measures if any.

Crs Okotel/Magee

That a report be prepared that explores:

(a) Minimum floor space requirements for dwellings in other jurisdictions including internationally and what benefit or detriment is created by these requirements;

(b) How minimum floor space requirements could be beneficial for Glen Eira in the case that such requirements are adopted by the Victorian state; and

(c) How Glen Eira Council could advocate for state-wide minimum floor space requirements such as through a planning amendment.

(d) The report by the City of Melbourne on its Unit developments and liveability as it may apply to the City of Glen Eira.

Crs Delahunty/Lobo

That a report be prepared to determine what role if any the Valuer General could play in determining the land valuation for the Crown Land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve currently leased to the Melbourne Racing Club. I request that the report contain any previous information or correspondence received by Council or by individual Councillors if known, from the Valuer General about the subject land. I request that the report advise on the methods to engage the Valuer General, the Trustees, the State Government and the MRC so that further lease negotiations are held in full knowledge of the value of the land. The report be presented to the next Council Meeting.

Crs Hyams/Magee

That a report be prepared on the extent to which vermin, including foxes and Indian Myna birds, are causing problems in Glen Eira and what Council can do to deal with these problems.

Cr Sounness/Okotel

That a request be prepared on the general health of the aboreal environment in Glen Eira to discuss the general health of park trees the possible need for tree irrigation or watering practices and the strategic implications of the long term climate projection made by the Bureau of Meteorology.

 

September 9, 2014

Coming To A Street Near You – #2

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

We urge all residents to have a very close look at the zoning map presented below.

mckinnon zones

It illustrates completely the utter incompetence, indifference, and shoddy planning processes that exemplify this administration and its councillors – the latter who are supposed to set policy, oversee strategic direction and most importantly, represent their constituents when they make decisions. Instead, residents are now paying the price for such shoddy planning and the egos that were so determined to be first cab off the rank when it came to introducing the new zones – without consultation we repeat!

The map focuses on the McKinnon Neighbourhood Centre. We would like residents to ponder the following and then ask the creators of this scheme, and especially the Mayor of the time (Hyams) who was party to the secret ‘negotiations’, to justify and answer the following:

  • The total inconsistency. If promimity to railway stations is the stated criteria, then why are some streets (ie Hawthorn Grove) zoned minimal change when they are one street away from rail, and other streets that are up to four blocks away are zoned GRZ?
  • If the argument is that there is a nearby park, then surely it would have made more sense that medium/higher density dwellings go into areas that are served by open space given the planning scheme’s failure to cater for open space requirements in the GRZ and RGZ schedules and council’s appalling record in acquiring open space?
  • How was this zoning drawn up? Is it concentric, rectangular, or more of a pin the tail on the donkey exercise? Did any officer, or councillor ever walk along these streets and get a ‘feel’ for the neighbourhood? Why can one side of a very, very narrow street (Murrary Road) be designated as minimal change and the opposite side of the street deemed to be general residential zone?
  • Why should the 12th house in a street be earmarked as suitable for 3 storey development and the 13th house be plonked into neighbourhood residential zone?
  • Why can other councils undertake exhaustive reviews of their Housing Strategies PRIOR to introducing their zones and Glen Eira hasn’t touched theirs since 2000?
  • How can Hyams and others keep repeating the inane mantra that there was no consultation because the outcomes would have been worse! This argument alone is the most damning indictment of all councillors and the administration. Not only does it reek of arrogance but displays a total disdain for all aspects of democratic process and transparency.
 

September 8, 2014

Elections & Penang Street!

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

Liberal MP accused of breaking party ranks over ‘inappropriate’ development

Date:September 8, 2014 – 12:15AM

Henrietta Cook

MP Elizabeth Miller says she is merely supporting her local constituents. Photo: Michael Clayton-Jones

A Liberal MP has been accused of breaking party ranks after she opposed a proposed development that sits within new state government residential zones.

Bentleigh MP Elizabeth Miller wrote to Glen Eira City Council on behalf of residents last month to raise concerns about a three-storey block of units planned for a quiet residential street in McKinnon.

She labelled the proposed 24-unit development on Penang Street  “inappropriate”, saying it would “drastically alter the streetscape” and its height was a concern.

“It will also drastically change the local demographic and cause a shift away from a family-friendly area to apartment-style living,” she said in her planning objection,

“I urge you to consider protecting this family-friendly neighbourhood.”

Glen Eira was the first municipality to implement the new residential zones, which the government says are designed to create clarity about where development should take place and which areas are protected.

About 30 local residents have lodged objections, including some at a nearby retirement village who fear it will exacerbate traffic congestion and make it harder to get around the neighbourhood.

Ms Miller said last August that the changes would protect residents’ backyards and would be “welcomed by the many families who’ve spoken to me about protecting local streetscapes”.

Former premier Ted Baillieu’s mother-in-law Joan Jubb, who has a billboard spruiking Labor candidate for Bentleigh Nick Staikos in her front yard, lives on the same street as the proposed development and fears it will destroy local amenity and create traffic issues.

Ms Jubb blames the proposed development on the new zones, which allow a maximum building height of three storeys or 10.5 metres in her street.

“The planning zones have allowed people to develop such a monstrosity,” she said.

Robyn Morgan, who lives next door to the proposed units, is spearheading a community campaign against the development, which, if approved, will demolish two single-storey weatherboard houses from the 1920s.

She said Ms Miller’s objection contradicted the Liberal Party’s own policy.

“It’s inappropriate for a small residential street. If we allows this sort of development to go ahead, it will destroy local neighbourhoods. We will lose all our afternoon sun,” Ms Morgan said.

Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the new zones were “taking a wrecking ball” to suburbs. He said Ms Miller had broken party ranks by criticising a development that had been put forward in compliance with the new zones. “Denis Napthine should take the advice of his own MPs, who are breaking ranks to end this destruction.”

Ms Miller denied she had defied the party line. She said she had been overwhelmed with residents opposed to the development and had simply taken up their concerns with the council.

“I believe residents’ concerns are warranted, so I have written to council. It’s an inappropriate development for the area,” she said.

She said she was happy with the new residential zones.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the new zones had given residents greater protection against inappropriate developments. He said under the previous system, the area had no mandatory height limits. “You could put a 50-storey building in the previous zone.”

Mr Guy said Ms Miller was being a good local member by lodging the objection and the new zones were working well.

 

September 4, 2014

Coming To A Street Near You!

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

If you happen to live in a street that is now zoned as Residential Growth Zone or General Residential Zone, then you might consider doing what countless Glen Eira residents have already started doing – getting the hell out of the municipality before the area really goes to the dogs and making some money in the process. We now know of 6 instances where owners are getting together and selling their properties as one lot. This trend will no doubt continue – especially when people start realising that their streets and their neighbourhoods are about to be over-run with inappropriate development thanks to Council’s welcome arms approach to development and their unwillingness to undertake current and proper strategic planning.

A perfect example of the insanity of this planning scheme can be seen by what is happening in Penang St. McKinnon which has now inconceivably been given the green light for 3 storey developments. Two properties at 2 and 4 Penang St were bought by the same developer and there is now an application for a 3 storey, 24 apartment, and of course, a reduction in visitor car parking. The combined land equals roughly 1360 square metres. However, that’s not the end of the stor(e)y.

Penang is a quiet residential street consisting of only 9 dwellings and several which front Jasper Road. Many of these nine dwellings are single storeys and the double storeys add their own character to the street as the photos below will show. We cannot see any rhyme or reason why such as street has been placed in this zone, in contrast to say Wattle Avenue which has been left as minimal change, yet consists of several scruffy looking blocks of flats and units. As one commentator on this site has asked – no one from council could possibly be living in Wattle Avenue could they? In terms of another 24 apartments and growth in the surrounding streets, then Penang is the perfect setting for the latest rat run as drivers try to avoid the lights at the corner of Jasper and Mckinnon. Needless to say, there is no parking plan overlay for this Neighbourhood Centre!

To make matters worse, the houses at 2 and 4 Penang St. are ‘classical’ and with their demolition this will now create the precedent for more triple storeys in the street and surrounding areas. Here’s what will be lost and replaced with box like dwellings no doubt – the slums of the future!

P1000317

P1000319

Some of the other houses in the street look like this!

P1000320

P1000314

P1000312

P1000316

We remind readers that Council has:

  • Introduced these zones in secret & without consultation
  • Council has never stated what is the optimum population for Glen Eira
  • No Housing Strategy review has been done since the late 1990’s
  • A one size fits all approach based on antiquated data is unacceptable.

We urge all readers to inform themselves of what zoning they fall under and to protest and protest at whatever application comes in that they believe will threaten their amenity, lifestyle and environment. Remember, amendments may be made, but they can also be tossed out – especially with a new set of councillors who actually give a damn about what’s happening to neighbourhoods all through the municipality!

 

September 3, 2014

Getting Our Priorities Right!

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

When one considers that planning applications have the power to impact dramatically on people’s lives, the least that councillors could do is to actually consider and debate the merits of the case. Instead, what invariably happens in chamber is that councillors merely regurgitate the officer’s reports (verbatim at times), possibly make some minor amendments and the whole matter, from start to finish, takes approximately 5 minutes – if even that long! People’s lives, their amenity, surely deserve more than 5 minutes of weasel words?

By way of contrast, slapping themselves on the back about the moving of the Toy Library to a council owned building takes around 12 minutes and ten years of community pleading! Requests for reports, turn into marathons of political grandstanding, constant contradictions, and a focus on ‘feel good’ issues that many would argue are beyond council’s control. These requests take close to half an hour of argey bargey and political point-scoring.

Of course no information is provided to residents on:

  • What happened at the VCAT ‘mediation’ over the Caulfield Village Development
  • No explanation as to why the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion will not be completed until half way through next year
  • No insight into whether the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion is over budget

In short, all the important issues, are downplayed, given short shrift, or the code of silence descends. That is the incontrovertible message that these councillors send to residents. The priority for this Council and its councillors is to continually slap themselves on the back and state again and again how wonderful they are.

PS: The triple block of land in McKinnon Road (1112 square metres and zoned GRZ)  was sold today for $3.61 million! At that price, residents can look forward to plenty more chicken coops so that the developer can recoup his outlay!

 

September 1, 2014

Records – #1

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

Below we feature two pages of meeting notes that occurred between the Minister, Newton, Hyams, and department reps. We urge all readers to pay particular attention to the last 5 paragraphs of Page 2. These paragraphs reveal plenty about the manner in which this council operates and its hidden agendas!

IMGIMG_0001

 

August 13, 2014

VCAT

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

We’re highlighting one particular decision from last night’s council meeting because we believe it exemplifies practically everything that is amiss in planning decisions by this council and especially the role that councillors should play.

To state the obvious, applications are meant to be judged according to the standards prescribed by the Planning Scheme. It is Council’s responsibility to enforce those standards. Full stop! The granting of a permit should never be decided on the basis of what councillors think might happen at VCAT if objections crop up and the case is taken to this body. Time and time again the arguments that issue from certain councillors is that VCAT is ‘arbitrary’, ‘inconsistent’ and that it all boils down to the individual member. So, if this is indeed the case, then how can Lipshutz state, as he did last night, that ‘I know VCAT will approve’ and hence the permit was granted. It is even worse when Sounness, who moved the motion to grant the permit, also argued on these same lines – ie. that he couldn’t see how Council could mount a ‘defence’ in VCAT and the best option is to ‘apply conditions’. Hence, a permit was granted. Whether or not some of the ‘fault’ lies with the Planning Scheme itself, has never of course been broached by any councillor. Nor has the question of how well Council actually defends its decisions at VCAT.

As for the regular VCAT Decisions report, Hyams together with Lipshutz again implied that resident objectors would be better off if they refrained from objecting. According to Hyams, one decision handed down was a ‘salutary lesson’ for objectors since they were now ‘worse off’ in going to VCAT because the developer got more than Council had granted in their original permit. In other words, DON’T OBJECT and leave everything to us, the ‘experts’.

We’ve know of no other Council, where such disdain for the rights of citizens is so frequently featured. Nor do we know of any other Council where arrogance is so prevalent. If Council’s record at VCAT is so wonderful due to this ‘expertise’ then they need to explain why the vast majority of their decisions in the past year have either been overturned completely or the conditions varied considerably. And scattered throughout the hearings there are occasions when resident objectors (that ignorant lot) were successful in completely overturning Council’s decision to grant a permit.

 

August 8, 2014

Residents Beware! – Another Caulfield Village Around The Corner!

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

Residents Beware! We are about to be dudded by this administration and its developer friends and councillors in the very near future in relation to the Virginia Estate site. Item 9.14 of today’s agenda tells us:

  • An amendment is in the pipeline to rezone all of the 12 hectares into Commercial 1 zone. Currently only the centre of this site is suitable for residential development and not its ‘ourskirts’ that abut residential streets.
  • No detail is provided by the Akehurst report as to the precise nature of this proposed amendment and its potential ramifications
  • There is absolutely no sense in rezoning this land unless the objective is to cram more residential units onto the land. Currently up to 10 storeys is mooted. How many units will 12 hectares hold we wonder?

What we do object to most strongly however is the entirely devious, disingenuous and ultimately misleading information that is contained in the Akehurst report. Readers are told –

The amendment seeks a rezoning of the land only. No development application has been received. Any future development will be subject to a town planning permit process which will be advertised to the public. VCAT appeal rights, including to the community, would also apply to any planning permit application. 

What Akehurst does not fully reveal in this report, and instead resorts to totally incorrect language of ‘town planning permit process’ is that Amendment C75 passed in 2011 comes with a specific Schedule that demands the submission of a DEVELOPMENT PLAN. In other words, whatever planning processes will evolve over time will follow the same course as the Caulfield Village fiasco – ie an Incorporated Plan that residents did not see prior to the Panel hearing, then a Development Plan where all residents could comment upon were heights and setbacks with NO APPEAL RIGHTS. In this instance however, there is not even an Incorporated Plan.

Below we quote what was written at the time of the original Amendment and these quotes come directly from the minutes –

8th June 2010 –

The schedule to the DPO, introduces a requirement for Council approval of a Development Plan (i.e. the “detail”) to be submitted down the track when the specific design of a particular building/s is known. The Development Plan must be generally in accordance with the Precinct Plan, however, no third party appeal rights apply at this stage. This is a similar approval mechanism as proposed by Amendment C60 (Melbourne Racing Club). It allows community input at the broad conceptual level. At the detailed level, Council must seek community feedback by advertising the development plan. However, there are no third party (residents) appeal rights. This approval process is becoming common in cases like this where there is no actual development currently under consideration.

It is recognised that this amendment does result in some uncertainty about “what” is being proposed and the ability for the community to have a say when the detail is known. To this end, the requirement for a Development Plan to be submitted when the detail of development is known should give some comfort to the community. Development Plans are required to be submitted on a precinct by precinct basis and are required to provide detailed information on likely traffic impacts and the traffic management works which may be necessary to accommodate the predicted traffic generated by the development. Council is also required to display these plans and seek community views. It is important to note, however, that third party appeal rights will not apply at this stage. This is a similar process to that adopted by the Melbourne Racing Club with its masterplan amendment.

Following the Panel Hearing, council had to decide what to do with the amendment. On 5th March 2011 the following appears in the minutes –

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

The one issue where the Panel disagrees with Council is in relation to the extent of the landscaped setbacks to the south and east of the site. Council proposed an 8 metre setback to accommodate substantial canopy trees. The Proponent argued that 5m was sufficient. The Panel agreed with the proponent and accepted the evidence given on this issue on behalf of the proponent.

It is recommended that in this instance, Council should accept the ‘umpire’s decision’ and adopt the amendment with reduced landscape setbacks to the south and east.

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That Council:

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

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

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

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

 

Please note that the final gazetted version of the Amendment includes the following in the Schedule –

West boundary (East Boundary Road Precinct): 8m landscape setback.

 South boundary (Virginia Park Precinct): 5m landscape setback

 East boundary (Third Avenue Precinct): 5m landscape setback for a 4 storey building from a public open space, or 5m landscape setback for a 3 storey building from interface with any residential use.

 More questions are therefore needed:

  • Given the above council resolution NOT TO ACCEPT the panel’s recommendations on site setbacks, why was this resolution not adhered to? Who made the decision to accept a 5 metre setback? And why was this never reported back to the public and/or council?
  • If a Section 173 agreement is in existence, then why has this never been made public – especially since East Boundary Road is already a nightmare?
  • Why is this Akehurst report so bereft of real detail? Are residents and councillors simply being sold more furphies and the ultimate agenda is to grant the developer everything he wants – aka the MRC?
  • Whilst this practice of Development/Incorporated Plans is certainly ‘legal’, residents need to start asking whether the manner in which this council accommodates such practices is indeed in the very best interests of the community.

Finally, we deplore the failure of officer reports to include:

  • All relevant information
  • The use of language that can only be seen as deliberately misleading
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »