August 7, 2014
The City of Melbourne appears to be making some major strides in achieving greater transparency and accountability – at long last! Not only do they have a Notice of Motion, webcasts of council meetings, but this latest vote on reporting on open space contributions definitely caught our eye. Needless to say, Glen Eira Council has nothing remotely similar!
August 4, 2014
GLEN Eira Council has won the battle to reallocate State Government funding for CCTV cameras in Bentleigh to community safety programs throughout the suburb.
The $150,000 had originally been set aside to pay for the installation of cameras in Centre Rd, Bentleigh, but will instead be used for projects such as locking bike cages and community education programs.
Bentleigh’s Liberal MP Elizabeth Miller has chosen which community safety projects get funding.
Glen Eira Council was the only council in the state to turn down the money, as it didn’t want to pay for the continued upkeep and monitoring of the equipment.
Crime Prevention Minister Edward O’Donohue took a swipe at councillors when he made the announcement last week.
The statement released by Mr O’Donohue’s office labelled Glen Eira’s councillors as “ideologically preoccupied … with scandalous disregard for the safety of ratepayers”.
Mr O’Donohue said: “It would not have been fair for the Bentleigh community to have missed out on this money just because of the council’s disgraceful decision.”
In November the council voted to ask the State Government if part of the money could pay for the continued cost of the cameras, but that was rejected by the minister.
Glen Eira Mayor Neil Pilling said the comments were out of line.
“The Minister and local member’s comments are totally unnecessary and disrespectful to democratically elected local councillors who, by a strong majority, made an informed and considered position on CCTV cameras in Centre Rd, taking into account the needs, costs and benefits to the Bentleigh community,” Mr Pilling said.
“Minister O’Donohue seems to believe Bentleigh is a crime hotspot which is in full contradiction to what both Victoria Police and council understand to be the true situation.
“Rather than resorting to these types of negative political comments, in my view, Mr O’Donohue and Ms Miller should be more focused on working with all groups in the community to deliver much needed and improved facilities and services.”
Among the 18 local community safety proposals to receive funding there are projects to install locks, lights and alarms on community facilities, secure bike sheds for nine local schools, and education programs about crime and anti-social behaviour.
July 23, 2014
The Open Space Contribution Levy has featured prominently at the last two council meetings. At the July 1st meeting the claim was that with objectors going to a Panel this is estimated to add approximately 7 months and that revenue ‘foregone’ during this time could be of the order of $2m. At last night’s council meeting the $2 million suddenly morphed into this (from the officer’s report) – At the 2013-14 rates, that would be a difference of about seven months or around $700k. Lipshutz even made up his own figures and spoke of a million dollars! The best lines however came from Hyams with his assertion that the objectors had a ‘tribal distrust of council’ and this was their ‘motivation’ for lodging objections.
Perhaps a far more reasonable take on council’s approach to collecting money from developers would be to calculate how much money has been LOST over a period of 11 years. Perhaps residents should also be seeking answers as how much land council has sold, as opposed to how much land has been purchased in order to meet the open space demands – first identified in 1987.
Even on the new ‘transparency’ so lauded by Delahunty, the figures provided in the officer’s report are fascinating – and of course entirely begs the question as to why such data is only made available now and not on a regular basis! More telling is the fact that council states that the range of rates currently applied are – 2.25% to 5.0% (maximum). So how come, when the supplied list is analysed NOT ONE SINGLE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS LIST OF 54 HAS PAID 5%? Further questions should also be asked. For example:
For eleven years now (since 29/5/2003) council has done nothing to up its open space levy – even though it has been fully cognisant of the fact that open space is a premium in Glen Eira. How many millions have been lost during this time? And how much money has been lost by not even applying the full 5% that council could legally apply?
Compared to the 11 years of doing absolutely nothing, a delay of even 7 months, seems very worthwhile in order to ensure that an amendment is passed which will truly benefit the community!
July 18, 2014
There’s much in the current agenda that deserves comment. The most significant is that the MRC or their developers have lodged an objection to the miniscule conditions imposed by council on the Caulfield Village development. What a surprise! The VCAT hearing is set down for September.
It is also important to note that the public relations arm (via Newton) is out in full force with reports designed to both gild the lily, and to obfuscate the real issues on Amendment C120 (open space levies) and housing approval statistics. We will report in detail on both these matters in the days ahead.
Staying true to form, there is another report on what council could do regarding apartment sizes. Again, no surprises from this ‘do nothing council’. The recommendation is that regulating size is a state issue and all council should do is ‘advocate’ via the Municipal Association and have ResCode updated.
Readers also need to have a close look at the Advisory Environment Committee’s set of minutes. The trend to ensure that as little as possible is made public continues. Advisory committees should never be the place for important policy discussions, especially where officer reports remain secret, and the public is barred from attendance. This transgresses all notions of transparency and good governance, especially when many committee recommendations are then simply accepted by council without any open debate, or very often without the accompanying data to justify those recommendations. Here are some items from these minutes that readers might like to ponder:
That the Chair of the Environment Advisory Committee write to Vision Super to ask for information on their Ethical Procurement Policy and practice.
3.5.3. A letter was sent on 15 April 2014.
3.5.4. ACTION: Officers will seek an update on whether there has been a response to the letter and follow up if necessary
5.1. Car sharing
5.1.1. Traffic Department have advised that there is a trial underway (MS).
5.1.2. ACTION: Officers will provide further update on the current trial at next meeting.
5.2. Glen Huntly Reservoir Proposed Park
5.2.1. JD raised the question of whether a community garden should be trialled at the new park.
5.2.2. Discussion included that the proposed park is currently out for community consultation which has been informed by several consultations to-date.
5.2.3. JD plans to put in his own submission to the Booran Road Consultation process.
5.2.4. ACTION: Officers will seek clarification about the timing of Open Space Strategy action to investigate potential locations for community gardens in Glen Eira.
Last, but not least, there’s this from the in camera items – Under Section 89(2)(f) ‘legal advice’ which relates to ‘Code of Conduct – Possible Additions’. Residents should expect more ‘tightening’ (ie nooses) placed around the necks of councillors we predict, with this one!
July 9, 2014
July 8, 2014
PS: Clearly the MRC and its associates do not like the negative publicity they are receiving. Their response? To pull the promo video from YouTube! As always, actions speak louder than words, and this action ‘screams’ louder than most!
Towards the end of this video we are informed that the Smith St. Precinct will now contain two 22 storeys in height. By the time the plans come in, no-one should be surprised if this becomes much, much higher. So much for Council’s 20 storey “height limit” that was announced with such fanfare years ago! We also have to chuckle at the gloating, phrase of ‘the might of the MRC’. There are also countless other ‘changes’ to what the Development Plan envisaged.
This ‘might’ and council’s total impotence and lack of trying perhaps, is brought out via another public question that was asked last Tuesday night. Residents should be told:
The public question –
In June 2008, a Joint Communique was signed by the Melbourne Racing Club and Glen Eira Council which related to the use of Public Open Space in the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse. With regards to relocation of training from the Caulfield
Racecourse, included in the Joint Communique, is the statement that; “The MRC will provide Council with an annual update on progress” Could Council please provide all annual progress updates received from the MRC since the Joint Communique was signed.
Council’s ‘response –
Council has received no updates.
The management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land is currently the subject of a Performance Audit by the Auditor General for Victoria.
July 8, 2014
After years and years of secrecy, there just might be some changes in the appointment of independent members of the Audit Committee. Based on past history, we had quite reasonably assumed that the selection of an independent member was done and dusted but this resolution shows otherwise.
Crs Delahunty/Magee
1. That Council endorse the recruitment process to appoint an Independent Member to Council’s Audit Committee. That Council endorse the transparency of the process and that Council move forward from this point to find the appropriate candidate for the City of Glen Eira.
2. That this resolution be incorporated in the Public Minutes of this Meeting.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
Yet, the phrasing of the resolution, and the very fact that it was done behind closed doors does not assist in entirely alleviating suspicions. For example:
Here’s how some other councils do things –
http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_12_-_audit.pdf
http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/reports/pdftext/cp29apr14/6.1.pdf
July 6, 2014
The officer’s report –
A recent example was the Alma Club where Council officers attempted to secure land for an additional local open space in Caulfield North but, owing to the impact on the design, suitable land could not be made available and a cash contribution was made instead.
The Public Question –
Item 9.8 of the agenda cites the Alma Club site as an example of a cash rather than land contribution. For this site, I ask:
1. What was the undeveloped land value placed on the site?
2. What was the full cash contribution that council received?
3. Was this amount paid in one lump sum?
4. Why was any contribution paid prior to subdivision and as stipulated by law?
The ‘Answer’ –
The report at item 9.8 was correct in saying that Council tried to secure agreement to an open space contribution of land at the former Alma Club. It was right to say that, following a period of negotiation, that was not feasible and the open space
contribution will be in cash.
The report was mistaken to say that the contribution had been paid. What has been paid is back rates of $67,430. That was paid on 30 May 2014. (Back rates are payable when a property ceases to be eligible to be rated under the Cultural and Recreational Lands Act and becomes rateable under the general rating system. )
The misunderstanding between the payment of the back rates as opposed to the open space contribution was made during the writing of that section of the item between the Planning Conference on the evening of 25 June and the Item being finalised on 26 June. Council apologises for the mistake. The open space cash contribution will be payable in cash at the time of subdivision and calculated according to the value of the land at that time. If Amendment C120 is in effect, it would be 5.7% and could not be appealed to VCAT. While Amendment C120 is not in effect, it would be 5% or less and could be appealed to VCAT.
A difference of 1% would equate to approximately $75,000 for this one subdivision.
July 1, 2014
A brief note on tonight’s meeting. Lobo, Pilling and Lipshutz were all absent. This inevitably lead to the circus of musical chairs, and three separate motions nominating individuals to attend a councillor ‘weekend’. Since nominated councillors had to declare a conflict of interest, and leave the chamber, there would not have been a quorum – hence the repeated motions/resolutions and the musical chairs.
Just how orchestrated council meetings are, how carefully scripted, was in full evidence tonight with countless Dorothy Dixer’s thrown at both Akehurst and Newton in the context of the ‘debate’ on Amendment C120. The dead give-away, was that Akehurst on numerous occasions read his answers from a prepared script! So much for impromptu ‘councillor questions’ that arise directly from the ‘debate’.
A public question on the assertion within the officer’s report that the Alma Club site had paid its open space levies, rather than a land allocation, was admitted to be ‘in error’ and an apology was tendered. Perhaps a council first, but again, this shows not only another stuff up, but that in all likelihood the offending paragraph was intended to mislead and deceive!
On the Caulfield Park depot removal to the Booran Rd/Glen Eira Rd, the infamous landswap was the primary feature with Delahunty moving a motion that if necessary council apply under FOI to see the legal documents involving the landswap, the valuation of the land, etc.
More on all of the above in the next day or so.
July 1, 2014
As a result of objections, council has gone out of its way to fudge the facts and to assert what can only be described as unreasonable ‘pressure’ on two objectors to withdraw their concerns and thereby avoid a Panel hearing. The argument as presented in the officer’s report is simple: cave in, don’t object, or you will cost the community $2 million. Utter rubbish we say! Some basic facts:
There’s much, much more we could comment upon based on this agenda item. We will conclude with the view that every single resident has by law the option of objecting to amendments. Every resident also has a right to expect that when an amendment is advertised, it is devoid of errors, widely available, and easily accessible. None of these fundamental aspects of process have been carried out by council. The C120 Amendment (that is an actual draft of the amendment) has NEVER been included in council’s agenda papers, nor in its minutes – unlike some of the less contentious amendments! Even for tonight’s decision, the amendment itself is not available in the online agenda items. Residents would be hard put to find any announcements on council’s website for example or, if they happen to have missed the one and only advertisement in the local paper, then they also wouldn’t be any the wiser. Being hidden away behind the desks at libraries also does not fulfill our expectations of fully ‘engaging’ the public. So much for the Community Engagement Strategy with its empty promises and motherhood statements. Actions always speak louder than words and that remains the only worthwhile standard of evaluation.
Council has had years and years of doing nothing about its open space levies. Now suddenly, amendments are rushed through and, as so often happens, are full of errors that can only be ‘fixed’ up later. Instead of thorough planning that looks ahead and avoids countless further amendments to rectify anomalies or gaps, this council appears content to allow such poor practice. The residential zones and lot sizes are the most recent examples of inadequate planning. Other councils like Kingston for example, saw this ‘problem’ straight off and included lot sizes in their first draft of the schedules. Not Glen Eira! Not good enough we say. And to then blame residents for holding up ‘progress’ simply does not wash.
Glen Eira Debates 