We reproduce only part of the 4 page flyer here.
GE Open Space
Archived Posts from this Category
September 4, 2016
August 23, 2016
Secrecy, Secrecy, Secrecy!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[13] Comments
The Ombudsman recently met with the CEO and the Mayor in relation to her investigation into ‘secrecy’ and lack of transparency in council decision making. It is therefore astounding that the following has occurred so shortly afterwards.
1.The online and hard copy agenda published on the Friday before the last council meeting did not contain any items for in camera consideration
- On the evening of the council meeting (ie last Tuesday week) there was this ‘insert’ into the agenda – please note the in camera item.
- The minutes have finally been published. Wonder of wonders, the above description has disappeared into the ether. All that residents are now told is this wonderfully uninformative single line –
12.1 Under s89(2)(d) “contractual”.
Then on ‘outcomes’ of the in camera discussion, the minutes state –
Item 12.1
Crs Lipshutz/Delahunty
That the recommendation in the report be adopted.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
What has happened to the far more expansive explanation regarding the open space item? Why was this edited down and by whom? Why is so much effort expended to keep residents uninformed? And why does this council continue to push the envelope when it comes to transparency and sound governance? Who is behind this latest attempt at secrecy? We would even suggest that given the resolution the item is no longer ‘confidential’, since the Local Government Act states on disclosure:
in relation to resolutions recorded in the minutes, incorporate relevant reports or a summary of the relevant reports considered in the decision making process.
Residents have no idea as to the ‘report’ much less any idea as to what this resolution concerns, or what its ramifications are? Will council be spending money for open space? If so, how much? Did the report recommend no purchase? Where is this potential open space? Is the location good value? We can only assume that if the wording of the item was changed then it is a deliberate attempt to conceal from the public what is really going on! What makes this even easier to conceal is that council sees fit to provide only half a dozen or so agendas in the chamber when the gallery over the past few meetings has at times contained 10 times this number of residents. Please remember that council has ‘promised’ several times over the years to consider displaying motions, amendments via some form of overhead, so that residents can follow what is going on. Nothing has eventuated!
We are confident that the ombudsman would be very interested in this latest example of Glen Eira’s approach to transparency and sound governance and non-adherence to the strictures of the Local Government Act!
August 8, 2016
The Ultimate Betrayal!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[18] Comments
Residents need to take careful note of what happens tomorrow night, especially what councillors say and how they vote on the so called Planning Scheme Review. If this is passed as it stands, then it is a clear message that councillors are not the community’s real representatives. They have to be gone in October!
The euphemistically entitled Planning Scheme Review, is anything but a professional and comprehensive review. It continues the tradition of pro-development, anti-community, and the ‘ let’s do nothing’ mentality that has so bedevilled this council since its inception.
Here are our reasons why this document is not worth the paper it is written on:
- Does not meet the legal requirements associated with planning scheme reviews (ie the relevant Practice Notes and the ‘continuous improvement kit’.
- Does not present full and comprehensive figures (ie very selective editing)
- A work plan that is literally ludicrous and designed to only delay and then delay some more
- The absence of any data in this review which assesses the actual performance of the planning scheme.
Questions that should be answered of councillors:
- Why is it that practically everything is lumped together under the umbrella of a ‘structure plan’? Plenty of actions can be taken without the need for a structure plan! Parking overlays can achieve the same result. Council had no trouble with Amendment C99 that introduced another student parking overlay to assist the Caulfield Village! No structure plan was needed here!
- Why is it that the issue of basement car parking is lumped under the ridiculous category of Water Sensitive Urban Design? Again, a simple amendment to increase basement car park site coverage can be done immediately via a change to the schedules – ie. Stonnington for both its Residential Growth Zones and General Residential Zones has this – Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.
- Why is it that the zones themselves do not rate a mention when this has been the constant cry from residents? Why is nearly half of Ormond zoned as GRZ1 – telling developers they can put in 3 storeys to their hearts’ content? Why aren’t the zones themselves a priority for ‘review’ – especially since Glen Eira has quadrupled its population and housing targets? This of course is not mentioned anywhere!
- Why does the section on Local Policy simply state ‘develop new policies where gaps are identified’ and the time span is given as 2 to 3 years? Any decent ‘review’ should already have identified all the gaps!
- Why is there no mention of Mixed Use Zoning, or Local Centres, where there are no height limits? Will council only look at Activity Centres and nothing else? Why isn’t this spelt out fully?
There is plenty more that could be said about this effort. We will desist and simply urge all concerned residents to write to the Minister and local politicians and demand that this Planning Scheme review be consigned to the rubbish bin and that Minister Wynne intervene directly and bring in interim measures. If council is incapable or unwilling to do its job properly, then the State Government needs to know and to act now. Glen Eira simply cannot afford another 3 to 4 years of doing nothing!
August 5, 2016
Planning Scheme Review – #1
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[11] Comments
As expected, the long awaited Planning Scheme Review, will NOT BE REVIEWING THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES as demanded by so many residents! Nor does the proposed work plan fill us with confidence that the municipality overall will greatly benefit from what is mooted – especially when suggested time frames go out to 4 years down the track. In this first of our posts we simply summarise sections of the suggested work plan and the stated time for completion.
Structure Plans – Complete first 3 within 4 years. Ongoing, continue with structure plans each taking 1-2 years to complete. (Comment – given that there are 10 Neighbourhood centres – that is a time frame of between 10-20 years!)
Neighbourhood Character Policy – 2 to 3 years.
Heritage Internal Review – 3 to 12 months
Heritage Major Review – 2 to 3 years
Municipal Strategic Statement – 1 to 2 years
Local Planning Policy Review – 2 to 3 years
Development contributions levy – 2 years
Parking Provisions – 3 to 4 years
Open Space – 2 to 3 years
Sustainability Policy – 2 to 3 years
Water Sensitive Urban Design – 2 to 3 years
Transition between zones – 2 to 3 years
Special Building Overlay – 2 to 3 years
Tree Protection Policy – 2-3 years
COMMENT
We acknowledge that due to council’s failure to act on planning issues for the past decade, there is now a huge backlog of work that is required. Having said that, residents should not be prepared to sit back and wait for another 2 to 3 years for changes to eventuate. The Minister’s directive to start work came in December 2015. Exactly what has council done in the past 8 months? How much money has been set aside in the budget to hire consultants to undertake the necessary work? How much of the upcoming work will remain ‘internal’ and secret – such as this statement from page 106 – Glen Eira has completed its review of the new residential zones. Though some community feedback is calling for Council to review the residential zone boundaries, particularly at ‘transition areas’ where two different residential zones meet, it is prudent to wait for the State Government to release its findings before any decision is made about reviewing our own locations.
And if council is so overwhelmed with the task ahead, then there is always the alternative of pinching what other councils have already successfully introduced into their planning schemes. Tree protection is the perfect example. Why this should take 2 to 3 years is laughable and says much about the underlying intentions of this council and its inept planners and councillors.
July 14, 2016
Are Some More Equal Than Others?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[15] Comments
If these residents are correct and this proposal is all about traffic management, then it is a pretty expensive way to resolve the issue. Of course, no one knows exactly how much this ‘park’ will cost! Nor are we privy to its size or how much of this area will be covered by concrete. No traffic analysis is provided (and we doubt it’s even been done!) in order to gauge the potential impact of closing off streets.
Other issues also need to be considered –
Pocket parks are, according to the research literature designed to alleviate the lack of open space in a HIGH DENSITY area. This proposal is smack in the middle of a Neighbourhood Residential Zone – ie LOW DENSITY. When other areas such as Carnegie are literally crying out for more and more open space and have less than North Caulfield, why doesn’t this area get priority?
According to the Open Space Strategy (OSS), Carnegie has 21.07 hectares of public open space. Of the ‘recommendations’ contained in the OSS for ‘additional open space’ all of the 5 recommendations carry the priority rating of ‘Very High’. In contrast, Caulfield North has 26.28 hectares of public open space; of the 6 recommendations made for ‘additional open space’ only one carries the ‘very high’ classification and this is for ‘gap area C1’. The proposal for Fosbery/St Aubins is not C1! Another 4 recommendations are rated as ‘high’ priority and one other as ‘medium’.
Thus, on every single criterion, Council’s proposal fails to meet the recommendations of its own OSS, plus residents are being asked to comment without being provided with the necessary full information. Residents in Carnegie have every right to ask if they are viewed as second class citizens when it comes to open space and the necessary funding.
July 12, 2016
Far From ‘Satisfied’ & Getting Worse!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[11] Comments
The most significant aspect of this survey which the Leader article does not focus on, is the discrepancy between resident evaluation of the importance of a service and the perceived ‘results’. Differentials of well over 20 signal a new low point in Glen Eira. For example: residents believe that ‘consultation’ is vital, giving it a ‘rating’ of 75 for ‘importance’. Their judgement on performance is 51! What should also be highlighted is that the differential between importance and performance has been growing steadily over the past few years – yet council has failed to address this decline. No amount of spin can disguise this fact!
Here is one page from the survey –
PS – BY WAY OF COMPARISON, HERE ARE THE RESULTS FROM THE 2014 SURVEY. PLEASE NOTE THE INCREASE IN THE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN IMPORTANCE AND PERFORMANCE
PPS – Not all councils have thus far published the results of their surveys. However, we’ve taken the opportunity to highlight some of these results as a further comparison with Glen Eira. For starters, Stonnington and Greater Dandenong DID NOT HAVE ANY SERVICES WITH A GREATER DIFFERENTIAL OF 10 POINTS. The screen dumps (below) from Whitehorse and Boroondara reveal that their residents’ angst is nowhere near those from Glen Eira’s population and the number of services with a discrepancy of 10 or more points is also well below the number to be found in Glen Eira.
July 8, 2016
Open Space & Another Clayton’s ‘Consultation’?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[5] Comments
No denying that more open space is desperately needed in Glen Eira. That has been the perennial call from residents since time immemorial. Council’s ‘solution’ is to turn streets into so called ‘parks’.
Currently there is another ‘consultation’ ongoing in regards to closing off the corner of Fosbery and St Aubins Avenue in North Caulfield. Replete with pretty pictures, the consultation provides no information on:
- The impact on traffic
- The size of this new ‘park’
- The cost of creating this ‘park’
- The ‘value’ of such endeavours? – ie what assessment has been made of the Eskdale Road and Riddell Parade ventures? How well are they used? Does this represent ‘value for money’?
Nor have residents been provided with any justification for the selection of these streets – particularly when the Eskdale Road closure is a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park, and the proposed Fosbery Street one is within 400 metres of Greenmeadows park. Why were these streets chosen and not ten others?
Confounding the choice even further, we highlight the following tender which was approved in August 2014 –
That Council appoints Fercon Pty Ltd, ACN 116 527 363 as the contractor under Tender number 2014.046 St Aubins Avenue and Fosbery Avenue Reconstruction for an amount of $908,176.00 exclusive of GST in accordance with the schedule of rates submitted
This clearly leads to a series of important questions:
- Have ratepayers spent a million dollars on ‘reconstruction’ only to have this now ripped up with new ‘reconstruction’ for the ‘park’?
- If so, where is corporate memory? Does the right hand ever know what the left hand is doing?
Conclusions? If council is prepared to spend millions on landscape design, consultation, and the short sighted option of closing off streets instead of real investment in new, multi-purpose open space, then they need to be upfront with residents and provide solid reasons based on facts, evidence, rationale, and evaluation as to the efficacy of their decisions. Presenting residents with a series of cute little pictures and calling this ‘consultation’ is insulting. Decision making must always be based on the full facts. This is not happening.
July 6, 2016
New Monsters!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[13] Comments
Presented below is a list of SOME of the new applications that have been submitted in the past 6 weeks. We have ignored many of the ‘smaller’ applications such as 2 double storeys, or 3 dwellings on one site. Council decisions are still to be made and many have as yet still to be advertised.
8 Egan Street, CARNEGIE – 16 storey mixed use (original application was for 155 dwellings – now 135)
60-64 Rosstown Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 8 storey, accommodation 49 rooms
285-287 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 storey, 59 dwellings
322-326 Neerim Road & 17 Elliot Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 38 dwellings
1110-1112 Dandenong Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storeys, 34 dwellings
90-94 Mimosa Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 49 dwellings
76 Truganini Road CARNEGIE – 5 new dwellings
3 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE – 7 new dwellings
26 Woorayl Street CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 10 dwellings
1 Beena Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 5 three storeys
23 Toolambool Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 5 dwellings
25-27 Horne Street ELSTERNWICK VIC – 7 storeys, 25 dwellings
411-415 Glen Huntly Road ELSTERNWICK VIC 3185 – 8 storey mixed use (no. of units not stated)
71 Patterson Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 4 storey, 5 dwellings
37 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, (no. of units not stated)
45 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – 6 dwellings
- South Avenue BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 9 three storeys
9 St Georges Avenue BENTLEIGH EAST VIC – 15 double storeys
3 Heather Street BENTLEIGH EAST – 6 dwellings
92 Kooyong Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 4 storey, 23 dwellings
1-9 Claire Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 44 dwellings
- 9 Adelaide Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 34 dwellings
2 Adelaide Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 4 double storeys
12 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 double storeys
9 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 9 three storeys
229 McKinnon Road, MCKINNON – 8 three storeys
2 Adelaide Street, MCKINNON – 4 double storeys
23-25 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 23 dwellings
31 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY – 5 double storeys
441-495 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST – 4 storey, 27 retired living units
43 Balaclava Road ST KILDA EAST VIC – 3 storey, 18 dwellings
3 Ardyne Street MURRUMBEENA – 3 storey, 13 dwellings
56 Hobart Road MURRUMBEENA – 6 new dwellings
126-128 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA – 3 storey, 32 dwellings
Flat 1-28 235 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC 3161 – 26 dwellings
441-495 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST VIC 3183 – 4 storey, 27 retired living units
460-464 Glen Eira Road CAULFIELD – 6 dwellings (4 double storey, 2 single storey)
TOTAL 774 PLUS UNKNOWNS in the six weeks!
The Planning Scheme cites an average of 500-600 dwellings PER YEAR!
The facts:
- Glen Eira has quadrupled its average new dwellings per year
- How many of these new dwellings are single bedroom is undisclosed
- How many of these new dwellings stand empty is anyone’s guess
- How many ‘standards’ council overlooks in granting these permits is undisclosed
- Why Council fails repeatedly at VCAT remains unreported (but we know why according to VCAT judgements – the fault lies almost exclusively with the current planning scheme)
- Have any of these 2000+ new dwellings been granted an exemption in paying their open space levy and, for those that have paid, is the levy at the maximum of 5.7% in each and every case?
July 3, 2016
Our Money – #1
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance[11] Comments
We urge all readers to consider the following:
- Burke’s parting shot at Lipshutz & Hyams?
- The animosity between councillors?
- How our money is spent and the rationale for any cogent decision making?
- The overall governance within Glen Eira
+++++++++
Item 9.16 – The Budget
Pilling moved to accept as printed. Lipshutz seconded.
PILLING: claimed that council had ‘taken note’ of the submissions to the budget. Summarised some of the other ‘capital works expenditure’. Said the budget was ‘challenging’ given ratecapping and for council to ‘continue our environmental initiatives’ and other projects. Thought that the budget was ‘steady as usual’ in this ‘environment’ but council would ‘continue to build our community facilities’. Stated that some changes had been made as a result of submissions.
LIPSHUTZ: said that many residents might think that all council does is about roads, rates and rubbish. Went on to outline the things that ‘I have noted’ like day care. The Federal government cut funding and council is now ‘making up that shortfall’. Council’s parks and gardens are rated highest and that’s because ‘we spend money on that’. Since 2005 environmental issues have improved even thought ‘some of us have been dragged kicking and screaming’ to this position. Said it was a great ‘credit to this administration that we have such great parks and gardens’. Unlike other councils they don’t spend money on ‘weird and wonderful things’. Glen Eira doesn’t do this and the Auditor General tells them that the Chief Financial Officer is ‘one of the best’ in local government. Council got submissions and they could have ignored these but they didn’t like the dancing group who only wanted air conditioning. So ‘we listened to them and we thought it was appropriate’.
MAGEE: budget time is difficult because they have expenses and x amount of funds. Said that there are ‘smaller things in the budget’ that make the difference – like run ups for a cricket club so kids won’t fall over when they run up to bowl. For him the most pleasing was about the skatepark which will replace a ‘dilapidated’ facility and ‘how many of our youth’ use this. Council is now ‘putting in $550,000 for a new facility’. This will ‘transform’ the park, ‘as GESAC has done’ into a ‘large activity centre’. Stated that the perception of these kids is that they are ‘second class society’ but that’s not true. These kids are ‘very polite’ and ‘take care of other kids’. This has been ‘something that has been very, very dear to me for many years’ so he is very pleased with the budget allocation. Admitted that ‘at one stage we were looking at moving it’ but with the $550,000 the skateboarders will be delighted.
DELAHUNTY: said that ‘there’s a lot to like’ but a ‘couple of things’ she’s not too ‘pleased about’. Thought that ‘some projects’ need ‘clarification on’ like the Booran Reserve costs. Asked Swabey to ‘address’ the total costs and how they are ‘going to spend the money’.
SWABEY: said that the reservoir is $600,000 over budget and that the ‘timing between 2015/16 and 2016/17 has changed’. They ‘anticipated spending a lot more money in 2015/16’ but this ‘didn’t eventuate’ so the budget of May 2015/16 was readjusted to become ‘$4m in 2016/17 rather than $930’.
DELAHUNTY: said that she thought the over budget was ‘marginal’ and that in ‘5 years time’ we ‘won’t remember the hurt on our hip-pocket’ and it will be a ‘boost’ to open space. Strongly endorsed this aspect and ‘sustainability’ of the budget. Not happy though with increasing child care fees and shouldn’t ‘be looked at from the premise of how much do we want to subsidise’. Thought that the role of local government is to provide the best staff and facilities and should be ‘affordable’ to people. They don’t ‘hear about subsidisation in libraries’ or roads, so it shouldn’t apply here. Thought the increase was based on an incorrect ‘premise’. Went on to say that what really ‘sticks under my fingernails, excuse the pun’ is the funding for the Wellness Centre at GESAC. This was ‘part of the original concept’ and was ‘to provide nail services’ and seen as ‘ancillary services’. Nothing ‘wrong with that as a concept’ but the budget proposes to spend ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ to ‘finish off a Wellness Centre’ that ‘basically operates as a commercial entity’ and with ‘no social benefit’. ‘I’m quite angry about it’. ‘It’s so far beyond what we should be doing here’. Said it would be more acceptable if it ‘had some sort of social purpose to it’ like ‘apprenticeships’ or ‘giving out low rent schemes to people’. Said that ‘what we are doing is setting up competition to traders’ in the area and ‘using ratepayers’ money’.
Delahunty then proposed the following amendment – that the funding for the Wellness Centre be removed. Sounness seconded.
DELAHUNTY: said she ‘understands that it was part of the original concept’ but it’s not fair on local traders and doesn’t think that this is ‘in any way necessary’. There’s no ‘community space’, ‘social’ benefit and ‘is completely at odds with our role’ as a local government. ‘At the very least’ if this goes ahead then it ‘should have a social purpose’. Claimed that the money ‘could be better spent’ such as on the ‘pensioner rebate’ plus a ‘myriad of things we could do’ with the money.
SOUNNESS: asked Swabey if this is voted in whether the budget has to be changed?
SWABEY: the budget has to go to the Minister by 30th June and they would have to ‘reconfigure the whole budget’.
SOUNNESS: ‘assumed’ that this wouldn’t have a ‘major impact’ on the budget in that it was a ‘minor item’.
SWABEY: ‘$250,000’ is a ‘relatively small amount’.
SOUNNESS: asked whether ‘this would have any impact on the operation of GESAC?’
BURKE: stated that it would ‘make it more economically sound’.
LIPSHUTZ: as chairman of the Pools Committee they ‘looked’ at a ‘whole host of things’ like having a gym. There are other gyms in the area but they thought that ‘having a gym would make it viable’. ‘It was not simply the swimming pool’. People ‘need to change’. The Wellness Centre will provide ‘pampering’ like ‘massages’ and ‘those things are important’. They were told that putting in a gym will mean that ‘they will grow’ and ‘people’s thinking has changed’ and they want other things too like the Wellness Centre. ‘We want’ GESAC to be ‘a movable thing’, ‘we want it to be dynamic’. Shouldn’t think that officers and councillors said ‘hey bingo. Let’s have a Wellness Centre’ – ‘we had meetings on that’. Down the track ‘we will change again’. Said it’s ‘a bit late to come along now and say let’s change it’ after the ‘whole budget has been discussed for many months’.
DELAHUNTY – interrupted with her objection to Pilling that Lipshutz is ‘misrepresenting’ her in that ‘I’ve kept this consistent line of argument the entire time’.
PILLING: ‘I think there’s reason to slightly correct that’.
LIPSHUTZ: Delahunty has been consistent but at this ‘late hour’ when ‘we’ve gone uphill and downdale’ it is ‘important that GESAC is successful’.
HYAMS: said that one of Delahunty’s points was that the money from removing this from the budget could be spent on other things but ‘the point of this, is to ultimately make money’. So they should be ‘talking about the money we will be getting in years to come’. So the ‘financial argument’ is in ‘favour of doing this’. Said that in providing this facility they are providing ‘what the users of GESAC want us to provide there’ and it ‘adds to the whole GESAC experience’. Said that he would be ‘disappointed’ after ‘having this as a plan for so long’ it was rejected.
MAGEE: has ‘sympathy and support’ for Delahunty but ‘she lost me’ when she spoke about ‘having to be consistent’. At the time of planning GESAC there was ‘a company called AquaSwim’ and council put ‘in a pool which directly affected’ this company. The gym that went into GESAC was also ‘directly opposite the biggest gymnasium in East Bentleigh’. They did this because they were putting together a plan that ‘would not be draining money from council’ with the old pools. They had the philosophy of ‘what do we do to make it profitable?’ They’ve also got a café there which is in competition with other cafes. ‘For GESAC to continue to be the success it is, it is well worth’ this project because if ‘that’s what the GESAC community want and we need to fund that’ and ‘it’s not costing the ratepayers any money’ since ‘GESAC is paying its own way’.
DELAHUNTY: wanted clarification on Magee’s point that ‘GESAC is paying its own way’ and it’s ‘got a project cost of $450,000’ and for the next budget an ‘estimated income of $155,000’ so ‘in your opinion (to Burke) is this paying its own way?’
BURKE: replied that the figures show a ‘payback’.
DELAHUNTY: Lipshutz is saying that ‘this is a long conceived’ program under ‘the advice of the officers’ and wanted to know whether ‘that advice has changed’.
BURKE: admitted that council is under ‘financial pressure’ and ‘as officers’ they looked at the budget and ‘the pressures we were facing’ and officers were of the mind to ‘defer expenditure’ and ‘the councillor group took a different view – they asked us to actually proceed’.
DELAHUNTY: wanted to make the point and that ‘Lipshutz understands’ that ‘we are now acting in contrary to the advice of officers and not in concert with that’.
PILLING – asked who the question was directed at and Delahunty said Lipshutz.
LIPSHUTZ: ‘Council officers don’t make decisions. Councillors make decisons’.
DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order as to whether Lipshutz ‘understands’ that ‘we are now acting in contradiction..
PILLING: started saying that ‘to be fair’. Delahunty responded that she wanted Lipshutz ‘to be relevant to the question’.
LIPSHUTZ: said that ‘councillors seek advice but ultimately decision making is ours’. So even though officers have ‘given advice’ it is ‘we who make the decision’. ‘Sometimes we even make decisions that are opposed to officer’ advice. ‘That is appropriate’. Said that ‘our role is to make decisions and to seek advice and to determine whether that advice is appropriate’.
AMENDMENT PUT: VOTING IN FAVOUR OF AMENDMENT –DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO
VOTING AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ, PILLING, HYAMS, MAGEE, HO
AMENDMENT LOST
July 1, 2016
Money & The Open Space Levy!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[17] Comments
Hyams moved motion to accept ‘as printed’ – (ie not to do anything for a year or two!) Delahunty seconded.
HYAMS: said his request for a report was the result of ratecapping coming in and therefore reducing the amount of money ‘we would require’ to fulfil the Open Space Strategy recommendations. Said that it ‘was always intended’ that rates would ‘fund more than half’ of what was required. Population however has increased, ‘especially in McKinnon’ where the strategy stated there would be a decline. Thus ‘once the census figures are in which will be later this year’ they could ‘recalculate based on those’ new figures. Also said that ‘no other council’ has the high uniform rate that Glen Eira has.
DELAHUNTY: said that the ‘premise’ that council used to argue for 5.7% ‘has changed’ because of population growth and ‘our ability to resource what we actually wanted to do’. Therefore she thinks that it is council’s ‘obligation’ to review the levy. They need the census data to ‘add weight to what I already think is a pretty watertight argument’.
PILLING: agreed that ‘times have changed’ and limited their ability to raise funds because of rate capping. Said that raising the levy is ‘worth looking at but we need to do it properly’. Stated that the data should ‘take 6 months to come out’ so that would be ‘early 2017’.
HYAMS: said they went through an ‘exhaustive process’ in justifying the levy. Also said that ‘we would have received’ another million dollars ‘had the planning scheme not been held up by what ultimately turned out to be pointless objections’ which ‘delayed’ things by 9 months.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMENT
- How many millions is council foregoing by deciding to wait instead of instigating the process for a higher levy now?
- How many more times will Hyams be allowed to get away with misrepresenting the facts – ie. the Census website clearly states that data will be released ‘from mid 2017’ and certainly NOT ‘later this year’ as he claims.
- How ironic that every single point made by the objectors to a levy of only 5.7% is now vindicated?
- Parts of St. Aubins Avenue and Fosbery Street are now in council’s sights to close off the street and construct some ‘open space’. What analysis has been undertaken to ensure that council is getting ‘value for money’ from its previous street closures – ie Eskdale Road ( a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park) and another in Elsternwick? How much have these conversions cost? What is the total size? How much of these ‘open spaces’ are covered in concrete? The crucial question of course is – would residents be better served by the purchase of bona fide areas of new open space that do provide the space required for multi-purpose use?
As an illustration of council’s sheer profligacy, and unbelievable decision making, we feature these photographs taken in the last week. Readers will note that a bench, on a relatively small concrete base already exists. So council has now come along and doubled the size of the concrete – presumably to move the existing seat two metres to the left! How much did this new endeavour cost for a council screaming blue murder over ratecapping and the need for frugality? Who made such a decision? How on earth can it ever be justified?
Glen Eira Debates 
