GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

November 8, 2017

Bentleigh: Council’s Spin Department Hard At It!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[9] Comments 

Whilst there are undoubtedly some improvements to version 2 of the Bentleigh Structure Plan, it is still a long way off from meeting residents’ expectations and previous feedback. Council is now conducting another ‘survey’. How valid any results gleaned from this latest ‘consultation’ is definitely open to question, especially when only half the story is revealed to residents.

Here’s the first part of the ‘consultation’ and residents are then asked to rate council’s proposed actions based on these select statements:

CLICK TO ENLARGE

 

November 6, 2017

Do The Figures Add Up?

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

PS – WE FORGOT TO MENTION THAT COUNCIL NOW ADMITS TO A ‘PRELIMINARY’ FIGURE OF 3000 DWELLINGS FOR VIRGINIA ESTATE! WE FORECAST AT LEAST 3500 BY THE TIME ANY OFFICIAL PLANS COME IN!

This is a long and complicated post so we beg your forbearance.

Council’s planning is largely based on the projected population figures plus available ‘developable’ land as stated in the Housing id reports. We then get a few draft scenarios that seek to apply the new housing styles (ie garden townhouse, garden apartment, commercial, etc) to the various zones such as Neighbourhood Residential (minimal change), General Residential (3 storeys) and Residential Growth Zone (4 storeys).

As we’ve stated previously, some mention is made of Wynne’s introduction of Amendment VC110, but this is almost exclusively related to the requirement for the ‘garden areas’ in the General Residential Zone. No specific mention is made of the impact of removing the 2 dwelling mandatory condition for the Neighbourhood Residential zone. From what we can tell, this does not even feature in the multitude of so called ‘calculations’ council uses to justify its draft position.

Worse still is the Housing Report’s and council’s claim that areas zoned NRZ will in all likelihood achieve a dwelling capacity of 18 dwellings per hectare. The areas zoned GRZ are forecast to achieve a dwelling density of  anything between 75 if it is designated as a ‘garden townhouse’ to 150 dwellings per hectare if it happens to be labelled ‘townhouse and apartment mix’.

Both of these calculations are so off the mark, given recent trends, that it is not funny. Thus, if we can’t trust the data, how can we trust the recommendations and the overall planning decisions that are being made?

NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE (POST VC110)

Below is a list of the first 9 applications to have come in following the gazetting of Amendment VC110 in March 2017. Assuming that all will receive a permit, the results indicate that instead of a dwelling density of 18 per hectare, these 9 applications alone will bring in a dwelling density of 38 dwellings per 0.8 hectares!!!!!! We must then ask – what does this do to council’s planning? If the NRZ is now set to become a pseudo GRZ, do we need to firstly expand the activity centres and secondly have vast swathes zoned GRZ in all our neighbourhood centres?

Here are the figures for these 9 applications. Please bear in mind that we followed the ‘methodology’ used by council and the Housing report! Also worthy of noting is that Council’s document where the above table came from (UPLOADED HERE) does not include NRZ examples in its appendices!

76 Bignell Road, Bentleigh East – 3 units, 600 sqm

27 Draper St., McKinnon – 3 units, 1010 sqm

4-6 Hudson St., Caulfield North, 1300, 8 units

36 Mawby Road, Bentleigh East – 4 units, 700sqm

2 Newman Ave., Carnegie – 6 units, 1033sqm

22 North Ave., Bentleigh – 3 units, 777sqm

1 Ridell Parade, Elsternwick – 3 units, 700sqm

2 Shanahan Cresc., McKinnon – 3 units, 778sqm

3 rigby Ave., Carnegie – 5 units, 1134sqm

38 UNITS ON = 8032SQM = 0.8 HECTARES!!!!

 

GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE (3 STOREYS)

Council does include some ‘sample’ permits granted in this zone. Why these specific ‘examples’ were selected, we have no idea, and nor was any explanation provided!

We have tried to be far more ‘objective’ and the list below is the outcome from consecutive VCAT decisions in descending order. Only 2 are identical to the ‘examples’ provided by council. The site coverage cited come directly from the VCAT decision itself.

In complete contrast to council’s prognostications, we find that the GRZ establishes an average of just under 195 dwelling per hectare – well and truly above both figures that council provides. We are yet to see what real impact Wynne’s mandated ‘garden area’ will have on the GRZ. We are not hopeful given that anything above 1 metre in width can be deemed as part of the garden area and if land is subdivided first and is less than 400 square metres, then there is no need for garden area at all! So we again have to ask what does this mean for our overall planning if these figures are so off the mark?

33-35 Belsize Ave, Carnegie – 29 units – 1357sqm

291 Grange Road and 4 Walsh Street, Ormond – 23 units -1254

27 Elizabeth Street, Bentleigh East – 10 units – 878

137-139 Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena – 27 units – 1629

6-10 Claire Street McKinnon – 33 units – 2053 (council notes 1744sqm)

19-21 Rothschild Street, Glen Huntly – 23 units – 1366

466 Dandenong Road, Caulfield North – 14 units – 800

132 Hotham Street, St Kilda East – 16 units – 964

12-14 Quinns Road, Bentleigh East –  22 units -1276

10-12 Station Avenue, McKinnon – 21 units – 1449

1 St Georges Avenue, Bentleigh East – 12 units – 822

817-819 Centre Road, Bentleigh East – 24 units – 1231

2-4 Penang St., McKinnon – 22 units (1388sqn)

143 – 147 Neerim Road, Glen Huntly – 32 units – 1672

130 Murrumbeena Road, MURRUMBEENA – 16 units (883sqm)

91 McKinnon Road, McKinnon – 10 units (566sqm)

64-66 Bent Street, McKinnon. – 31 units (1371.29 sq m – not the 1500+ recorded by council)

2 Ormond Road, Ormond – 15 units (846sqm)

90-92 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North – 24 units (1240sqm)

135 – 137 Neerim Road, Glen Huntly – 39 units – 1654

4-6 James Street and 14-16 Etna St., Glen Huntly – 45 units (2462sqm)

UNITS – 488

Area = 25,161sqm = 2.51 hectares. = 194.42 DWELLING PER HECTARE.

 

November 4, 2017

Not Waving, But Drowning!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[12] Comments 

Council has finally released version 2 of its draft structure plans – together with a bevy of other documents. The result is that residents are literally drowning in paper – much of it repetitious, uninformative, and still failing to present information that justifies what is proposed.

In summary, here is a breakdown of what was published together. The total number would apply to all of Glen Eira and not just the individual activity centres. If a resident wanted to glean what was proposed for the entire municipality then they would be facing the herculean task of reading all the documents.

Residents can make up their own minds as to why documents which carry dates of July couldn’t have been made public earlier but had to be consigned to this single inundation. We certainly doubt that many residents would have the time, energy, or even willingness to plough through so many pages. As for councillors themselves – our bet is that none of them would bother either! That perhaps is the plan anyway?

Bentleigh Concept Plan consultation responses – 85 pages

Draft Bentleigh Structure Plan – 67 pages

Bentleigh Draft Activity Centre Structure Plan – Background Report –  93 pages

Bentleigh Transport Analysis & forecasting – 61 pages

Analysis of Housing Consumption & Opportunities – 103 pages

Peer Review – Urban Design Guidelines etc. – 77 pages

Planisphere Urban Design Guidelines – 50 pages

Community Benefits Discussion Paper – 19 pages

Assessment of Economic Impacts – 58 pages

Planning Strategy Impacts on Housing Opportunity – 35 pages (no links on Bentleigh site)

TOTAL = 648 pages!!!!!!

CARNEGIE

Draft structure plan – 65 pages

Background report – 94 pages

ELSTERNWICK

Draft Structure Plan – 71 pages

Background Report – 100 pages

TOTAL 978 PAGES

 

November 2, 2017

On A Wing & A Prayer

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[8] Comments 

Council presumably pays big bucks for its expert consultants. Residents should therefore expect a lot more than what is ultimately produced. Featured below is an extract from page 30 of the recently released ‘economic analysis’. Putting it bluntly, we do not know whether to laugh or cry at the arguments presented and the assumptions inherent throughout.

THE ASSUMPTIONS

  • a given amount of office space in one location will equate in agglomeration benefits to the same amount of office space at a different location. And let’s not worry about car parking provisions which are far less for office space, etc.
  • The largest assumption of course is that companies will decide to rehouse to Glen Eira. In a March 2017 article written by the paper’s economic editor, the reverse was found to be the case – that companies are drawn to the CBD rather than the suburbs or regional centres. See: http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/melbourne-booms-while-the-rest-of-victoria-wilts-and-itll-only-get-worse-20170307-guslcg.html

Thus we have a 58 page document that is basically endorsing council’s proposals rather than objectively analysing and backing up its recommendations with sound data. A couple of other paragraphs from this report provide the overall tone and we believe, intent.

While there would be expected to be strong demand for office suites from various small businesses, the capacity for office development within activity centres is limited by developer‘s preference for apartment development. Council has the opportunity to facilitate office development on its car park sites through either planning controls or conditions placed on the sale of these sites.

There is the opportunity for Council to play a leading role in facilitating the development of new office space through its ownership of a number of car park sites within the Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick activity centres. This may take the form of either office suites or co-working spaces. Additional opportunities also exist within Commercial 2 zoned precincts on the Nepean Highway in Elsternwick and Moorabbin

Council‘s ownership of the two car park sites provides the opportunity to influence the scale of development and size of individual apartments in order to meet the needs of downsizers and families.

 

 

November 1, 2017

Why No Answers?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[12] Comments 

For the past year we have illustrated time and again how development in Glen Eira is at least double what is required to meet the housing needs for the various population growth projections. Residents have queried council’s reports since they all fail to answer, much less address the most crucial questions:

  • where is the justification for the claim that another 9000 net new dwellings are required in the period from 2016 to 2031?
  • Where is the existence of any calculations that include the addition of anywhere between 4000 – 6000 net new dwellings as a result of the Caulfield Village and the Virginia Estate developments?
  • Given the above, how on earth does council justify the expansion of the activity centres and the proposed rezoning of hundreds upon hundreds of properties to cater for higher, and hence denser, development?

To reiterate:

  • Plan Melbourne Refresh sets two rough targets for the Inner South Region of 4 councils – Bayside, Boroondara, Stonnington and Glen Eira. The period for this ‘required’ growth goes out to 2051 and not 2031. There is the ‘aspirational’ target of 132,000 dwellings and the other target of 125,000 divided between the four councils. Glen Eira’s ‘share’ is thus roughly either 33,000 or 31,000 over this time period. Divide these numbers by the 35 year time spread and Glen Eira’s ‘quota’ becomes a mere 942 dwellings per annum, or 885 dwellings per annum.
  • Since the zones were introduced in 2013 Glen Eira has been averaging more than double the ‘quota’ figures stated above. Last year alone the number of building approval permits granted totalled 2012. Planning permits for the first quarter of the current financial year tally 453. Thus we are looking at a full year of at least another 1800 net new dwelling permits granted. To argue as council has done that less than half will be built is sheer nonsense in our view. Once a developer goes to the expense of buying the land, hiring architects, planners, and eventually getting a permit, there is every incentive to build and sell in order to recoup his costs. Even with land banking, we would find it extraordinary for any developer to sit on his land for 35 years!

Until council and its hired guns directly answer the questions posed above (as promised), we have little faith that what is occurring is any different to what has gone before – ie a council determined to stick to its pro-development agenda to the detriment of the community.

 

October 30, 2017

Draft Structure Plans – Version 2

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

Council has this afternoon published its draft structure plans for Bentleigh, Carnegie & Elsternwick. The East Village plans are yet to make an appearance. A quick summary of what is now proposed includes:

  • Bentleigh’s 8 storeys is now reduced to 5 storeys – although areas that were previously earmarked for a MANDATORY 4 storeys can now rise up to 5 storeys!
  • Carnegie and Elsternwick are still in line for 12 storeys but these areas are reduced.

The most disappointing aspect of these new plans is that residents are still to receive any details on:

  • Potential costings
  • Strategic justifications for heights proposed
  • No mention whatsoever of Caulfield Village and Virginia Park developments and how these might factor into council’s figures for meeting projected housing needs
  • Continual reference to ‘minimal change’ (ie NRZ) as containing 1 or 2 dwellings when council is already facing a dozen applications for multiple dwellings in the NRZ!
  • No real explanation as to why the borders of the activity centre, especially Bentleigh, has to double in size.

What irks us the most however is the question as to whether council is really committed to genuine consultation. If so, then perhaps they should explain why this advertisement appeared in Saturday’s Age on page 22 of the classified section, when we are being told that nothing is as yet set in concrete. It would appear that much is already predetermined – otherwise why spend a squillion on a tender before residents have even had the opportunity to consider much less comment upon the proposal?

We will comment in greater detail on these new plans once we have fully digested the content.

 

October 27, 2017

Elsternwick: Collusion And/Or Incompetence?

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

PS: we’ve neglected to mention another two major applications in Horne St. One is for 7 storeys and another for 9 storeys!

Elsternwick is, and has always been designated as a Major Activity Centre together with Carnegie and Bentleigh from the year dot. Thus when council announced its Planning Scheme Review and the start of the structure planning process, for some unaccountable reason, Elsternwick was not given a guernsey as part of the initial work plan. The excuse offered by councillors was that according to the popularity poll (aka survey) taken at the time it did not feature as prominently as Bentleigh and Carnegie. Six months later however, there was  a change of heart with no explanation. Now Elsternwick is joining Bentleigh, Carnegie and Virginia Estate as first cabs off the rank for structure plans.

The problem though is far, far worse for Elsternwick since it does not have any interim height amendments that were granted to Bentleigh and Carnegie.  Now that council has resolved to seek a year’s extension, that means that Elsternwick is open slather for developers for at least another 2 years if not longer.

It is worth speculating on the possible reasons for this situation –

  • Has council, or the department, or the minister always seen Elsternwick as fertile ground for massive high rise? What meetings, discussions, secret deals have possibly been made?
  • Have developers already come knocking on council’s doors and delaying any amendment is the result?
  • Since when does a shonky ‘survey’ constitute the rationale to overlook what the planning scheme says about ‘urban villages’? Worth remembering the outcry from Elsternwick residents when the draft concept plans (including 12 storeys) was announced and the claim was that residents weren’t sufficiently informed. If they weren’t informed about this, then what are the chances that they weren’t informed about some silly little ‘survey’?
  • And doesn’t the published draft plans substantiate council’s wish to turn Elsternwick into a high rise suburb?

This is already occurring. Here are two current applications that have yet to be decided – but given the lack of any protection, and the unlikelihood that anything will be in place until at least 2019, Elsternwick has been left to the wolves.

15-19 Gordon Street ELSTERNWICK VIC 3185 – Demolition of existing building and construction of a seven (7) storey building containing up to 47 dwellings and food and drink premises, reduction in statutory car parking requirement and buildings and works in a Heritage Overlay

233-247 Glen Huntly Road ELSTERNWICK VIC 3185 & 14 Ripon Grove ELSTERNWICK VIC 3185 – Construction of a multi-level mixed use development including 117 dwellings, up to 13 storeys plus basement, reduction in visitor car parking and waiver of loading bay requirements

And just to add more salt into the wounds, the currently proposed change for 10 St Georges Road ELSTERNWICK from its zoning of 4 storeys down to 2 storeys has an application in for – Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a four storey apartment building comprising twelve (12) dwellings above basement car park and reduction of visitor car parking requirements on land affected by the Heritage Overlay PLUS an application for ‘demolition’ even before heritage or the planning application is sorted out!

Readers should note that the application for 13 storeys will sit alongside what council proposes to be 2 storeys if it gets up. (See below). Much like Chestnut Street in Carnegie. There is also much more scope for development with the ABC studios/Ripponlea, Gordon Street, etc. etc. How on earth council didn’t know this was all on the cards and work diligently to ensure that Elsternwick was included in the earliest work plans is unfathomable – unless of course, collusion or straight out incompetence have played a major role here!

 

October 19, 2017

Another Disappointing Decision

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments 

Another disappointing VCAT decision for 33-35 Belsize Avenue Carnegie. This consolidated site runs across both the GRZ and RGZ (ie 3 and 4 storey) current zoning. The applicant got his permit for these heights and 29 dwellings.

Council’s draft structure plans featured this area south of Neerim Road as being ‘downgraded’ to double storey. This decision is simply another nail in the coffin for council’s plans – exacerbated even further by the request for another year’s extension on structure planning and the interim height guidelines. By 2019, we can only speculate as to how many other such developments will occur in these streets!

Below is what the member had to say about council’s plans and their current ‘value’.

Source: http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT//2017/1399.html

There has been some recent attempt by Council to manage this rate of change including the introduction of interim height controls and the preparation of a draft concept plan. I was provided with a copy of the Carnegie Draft Concept Plans and Carnegie Background Report-Building Transition Plan both dated July 2017. These documents propose side-by-side townhouse style development of 1-2 storey scale for all of Belsize Avenue and surrounds, other than along Neerim Road where terrace/ townhouse development of 2-3 storeys is contemplated. The document states that:

Carnegie has experienced a significant transformation in recent years with apartment developments being constructed in traditionally low scale areas. Current policy supports dense apartment developments with little consideration for the area’s existing character. The scale, rate of change and quality of new building stock are all issues that have been raised through consultation.

The Building Transition Plan looks to limit the amount of four storey apartment buildings in the long residential streets of established homes in Carnegie.

Ms Maude expressed concern that if the future changes set out above are implemented that the proposal before me will stand in complete contrast to the new planning framework. I find this strategic work is in its very early stages and cannot be given weight as a seriously entertained planning proposal. I cannot speculate as to future changes in planning policy and must apply the current planning scheme that seeks increased development throughout the urban village with the scale and intensity generally guided by the differentiation between the zones. I must apply the planning scheme as I find it.

 

October 17, 2017

How Many Dwellings Can Fit Into These?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

The following screen dumps feature land currently for sale. Most are within ‘neighbourhood centres’ and one is in Elsternwick. Council is now asking for a year’s extension on its interim heights amendment, with no clear dates set for its neighbourhood centres structure plans where plenty of development is occurring. The future is writ large in these shots!

 

 

October 15, 2017

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[10] Comments 

Apologies for this long, long post. It concerns the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting. There are many items that deserve comment – some good, some bad, and some particularly atrocious and misleading!

THE GOOD

After years and years of complaint regarding council’s lack of transparency and accountability, there does appear to be some movement at the station –

  • Item 9.8 recommends a tender be decided for telecasting both ordinary and special council meetings. We certainly welcome this and hope that those councillors who previously opposed such a move will now vote in favour. One proviso however is that no mention is made of when this will be up and running (if voted in).
  • For the first time there is now a running sheet of motions to be put forward at the MAV state conference – including how council will vote on the various motions. Previously these were all decided behind closed doors, so again a welcome new initiative. However, we also note that the rationale behind council’s position on many of these motions has not been included.
  • Another item features the review of the Community Engagement Policy. One important advance is the promise to ‘monitor’ and ‘evaluate’ the outcomes. For some unknown reason however, the actual policy is not included in the online agenda!

THE BAD

The most important item for this section is council’s application for an extension on the interim height amendments for Bentleigh and Carnegie. The current amendment expires on December 31st 2017. Council is now requesting a one year extension. What this basically means is that residents will not have the structure planning work completed and gazetted for the major activity centres until at least mid 2019! Worth remembering is that there is not even any ‘interim’ protection for Elsternwick! Further, no mention is made of the current neighbourhood centres – these could be waiting well into the 2020’s! Our concern is that with the constant delays more and more development will occur that will undermine the very objectives of the structure planning work itself. For example: it will be very hard to argue for a 5 storey mandatory height limit when countless buildings already exceed this height and which leaves the door open for similar developments over the next 2 to 5 years. What is certain is that if development continues as it has, especially in neighbourhood centres, then any attempt to rein in development will be that much harder if not impossible!

The above leads onto questioning council’s whole approach to their planning process – namely:

  • Why has it taken til now for those in power to realise that council’s approach to consultation has only now become ‘tangible’ to residents? What does this imply about the intent of the ‘consultation’? We have remarked previously on the lack of detail provided, the lack of strategic justification provided, the lack of genuine reporting of community feedback. From the first stage we have queried the validity of council’s approach – ie asking questions such as ‘what do you love about your shopping strip’ only serves to focus residents’ attention on the commercial strip itself. It does not guarantee that feedback will focus on the primary issues of development, open space, traffic, infrastructure, etc. As an example of what should have been done, and could have been done, readers may find the following screen dumps informative. They come from the Banyule consultation on Fairfield. Please note that the same consultants were used by Glen Eira. The difference in approach is staggering. Why is it that for the Banyule consultation this company included direct questions on height, traffic, etc. and in Glen Eira none of these queries were specifically included in the initial consultation. Surely the only reason to explain this is the brief provided to the consultants! In other words, hired guns again doing council’s bidding!

 

   

 

 

Plus some screen dumps of the initial ‘consultation’ processes employed in Banyule. Compare this with what Glen Eira did!

  • Given the amount of work required why has it taken over a year to advertise for an additional 4 planning staff (ie consecutive ads over 2 weeks). And this is on top of continued planning applications, VCAT appeals, etc. and council repeatedly bemoaning the fact that they have been inundated with applications and that more and more cases end up at VCAT. This trend has been evident since the introduction of the zones but it has taken 4 years to act!
  • Making matters even worse is item 9.2 in the agenda. For a ‘simple’ 2 double storey application in Thomas St, East Brighton, council couldn’t reach a decision in the required 60 days. This, despite the fact that they admit the following – The application was lodged on 28 November 2016. The application was advertised from 27 April until 15 May 2017 and 1 objection was received. The applicant lodged an appeal at VCAT on 6 September 2017 against Council’s failure to make a decision within 60 statutory days. Our sympathies to the developer in this instance since it is unfathomable why such an application should take forever to finalise! Of course, this means more money spent by ratepayers at VCAT! Please note we are not commenting on the merit of the application – merely on the unbelievable time lines.
  • We also observe that in the past year or so the number of refusals for 2 double storeys in the NRZ has gone through the roof. Invariably, our analysis indicates that in over 95% of cases that end up at VCAT, the applicant gets his 2 dwellings!
  • The only ‘positive’ out of all this is that council has at least had the good grace to publicly admit how inept it has been – there has been community feedback regarding the overall process including:
    • Requests for city-wide dwelling forecasts that inform the structure planning
    • Improved communication to all residents and landowners within the study area for the next stage of engagement
    • An appropriate level of detail for best consideration of positive and negative impacts of the proposals

Ensure the next round of consultation period allows affected parties enough time to read through the released information in detail, attend information sessions and provide a response to Council.

Surely this should have been a given right from the start? 

THE UGLY

The ‘ugly’ aspect of this agenda is council’s continued inability to reveal the truth in an honest and upfront manner. Instead we are presented with the usual spin and misleading statements designed to basically cover up what actually happened. Here is the offending extract –

We have commented on this issue previously, (see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/inept-or-indifferent/) but will repeat the evidence which shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that:

  • Senior officers knew of this ‘error’ back in July 2013
  • That from the department’s point of view this was not an ‘error’ but a required trade off for the introduction of the residential zones
  • Council also knew that at least one case went to VCAT where the developer tried to use this clause to his advantage (unsuccessfully).
  • To now turn around and claim that this ‘error’ has only been ‘recently’ discovered is a blatant lie! Even if Akehurst and Camera (the ‘architects’ of the residential zones) are now gone, Torres is still at council as are many other senior planners. Where is corporate memory? Why can’t council simply admit the truth?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »