GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

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

 

 

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.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »