GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

April 18, 2016

Community Forum #1

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

Tonight was the first of the 5 ‘community forums’ on the Planning Scheme review. About 30 residents showed up. Magee introduced the evening and then departed due to a prior engagement. He reiterated that Glen Eira has about 1300 people moving into the municipality each year and that they need to live somewhere. VCAT was still his main villain! His ten minute introduction was followed by another ten minute introduction by a ‘facilitator’ hired by council.

Residents were seated at tables with a council planner assigned to each table and a scribe given the task of recording people’s responses to the set questions from the discussion paper. At the conclusion of ten minutes for each theme, the elected scribe reported back to the entire gathering.

The following proposals were repeated several times and from most of the groups:

  • The need for structure planning
  • The need for tree protection
  • The need for parking precinct plans
  • The need for preferred character statements
  • The need to curb overdevelopment
  • The need for a full heritage review
  • The need for policies with more ‘bite’
  • The need for greater environmental considerations in terms of building design and vegetation
  • The need to protect local shopping strips
  • The need to review the zones and schedules
  • The need for height limits overall
  • The need for developers to pay for parking waivers and infrastructure

Sadly, the opportunity to ask questions and receive responses that the entire audience could hear, was not provided. It was clear that the focus was to be on the set questions from the discussion paper, rather than an open and free discussion. When one resident towards the end interrupted the facilitator as she was summing up and asked why no forum was scheduled for Bentleigh, the response was that council could not find a venue! We should also point out, that if council was really determined to engage with the community, then surely 6pm is not the ideal time! And finally, we ask, is it sheer coincidence that the forum scheduled for Carnegie, is to be held so late in the piece (25th May), with only 6 days left before submissions close?

PS: this is why the above recommendations are crucial

Untitled

 

April 14, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #2

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

Theme 1 of council’s Discussion Paper focuses on the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). This is supposed to outline the ‘vision’ and the policies that will enable the achievement of this ‘vision’. Much of the MSS is ridiculously out of date. A total rewrite is required especially when figures from the 1996 Census are sprinkled throughout this section, or the so-called Community Plan of 2001-2004 provides the basis for planning.

Of greater concern however are the Objectives and the Strategies which are supposed to implement these objectives. There is a total disconnect between what council purportedly aspires to, and how local policies can achieve such objectives. In many cases there are no policies that are in any shape or form available to support the stated aims.

Here is a limited list of objectives taken verbatim from the MSS.

Facilitate high quality urban design and architecture that will enhance neighbourhood character.

Question: how can ‘high quality urban design’ be ‘facilitated’ when there are no urban design frameworks?

Identify a preferred future character for housing diversity areas.

Question: how many more VCAT permits will council allow before it ensures that housing diversity areas do have preferred character statements and thus closes off this loophole so well exploited by developers?

Encourage the retention of existing vegetation, in particular vegetation and trees which contribute to the City’s tree canopy.

Question: how can council achieve this objective without a tree protection policy?

Ensure residential development in commercial areas does not contribute to traffic and car parking problems.

Question: When will council introduce decent Parking Precinct Plans and stop agreeing to car parking waivers?

Ensure that where new development places an increased burden on infrastructure it contributes to the upgrading of infrastructure

Question: How can this objective be met when council has removed its development contributions levy from the planning scheme?

It is all very well to have grandiose statements in the MSS. It is another matter entirely to ensure that there are policies within the planning scheme that will have the legal weight to bring these aims to fruition. As we’ve stated, in Glen Eira, there is not only a lack of policy, but a total disconnect between aims, objectives, and strategy. Thus, the answer to council’s question –‘Are there additional policies that should be included in the Planning Scheme’ – is a resounding ‘yes’!

 

April 10, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #1

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

The opening few pages of council’s Discussion Paper on the Planning Scheme Review correctly state that:

  • There has been a dramatic increase in the number of ‘mid to high rise’ apartment blocks built in middle ring suburbs such as Glen Eira
  • That population growth in Glen Eira is anticipated to require 12,000 new ‘households’ up to and including 2031. This figure is calculated from 2011 according to Vic Future 2015 and not 2016 as implied. That means that Glen Eira needs an average of 600 net new dwellings per year to meet its ‘quota’.

What the Discussion Paper DOES NOT REVEAL and is essential for a complete understanding of what is happening in Glen Eira due to the Planning Scheme and the zoning, is –

  • that building approvals are approaching 2000 new dwellings per year. Hence a 300+% increase on what is deemed as necessary to meet demand.
  • Building approvals of course, do not take into account the number of planning permits granted and these figures have also gone through the roof since the introduction of the zones. Even if only 50% of these planning permits are acted upon and construction completed by 2031, we estimate the number of net new dwellings per year to be in the vicinity of 2,500 new dwellings given current trends.
  • Council does not reveal that since the introduction of the zones close to 5000 planning approvals for net new dwellings have been granted. Thus, apart from the 300% increase per year, Glen Eira will meet its nominal ‘quota’ not in 2031 but more likely in 2020 at this rate!

Council provides no figures that enable comparisons with other neighbouring councils. Residents have no idea as to building activity in these other municipalities. No comparisons are provided on number of new houses built compared to number of apartment blocks; no comparisons in terms of ‘density’ and what this ‘building boom’ does to overall density and impacts on open space. This is significant since Glen Eira with its meagre 38+ square kilometres has one of the highest population densities in the state. The only council with a higher population density is Port Phillip – but this council is unique in terms of its Capital Zone Status, its ‘inner ring’ categorisation, the Docklands, etc., and its large tourist and commercial centres.

The table presented below is worth considering in our view. It reveals how Glen Eira compares with its neighbours in the Southern Region and elsewhere in terms of building approvals for the six months from July 2015 to December 2015. The stats come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics published in early 2016.

COUNCIL DENSITY PER SQK SIZE – SQK BUILDING APPROVALS FOR HOUSES BUILDING APPROVALS FOR UNITS TOTAL NEW DWELLINGS
GLEN EIRA 3385 38.7 198 741 942
BAYSIDE 2680 36.0 199 160 375
CARDINIA 57.92 1280.6 812 74 888
CASEY 615.72 409.9 1867 161 2041
FRANKSTON 1032 131.0 163 93 259
DANDENONG 1627 36.26 289 220 514
KINGSTON 1479.4 91.0 206 217 425
MORNINGTON 200.09 518.23 483 252 738
MORELAND 2887 51.0 240 858 1120
DAREBIN 2719 53.0 167 820 995
GEELONG 177.64 1247 1105 111 1222
HUME 332.5 504.0 1133 239 1372
MARIBYRNONG 2458 31.2 99 1339 1441
MELTON 536 527.3 894 153 1047
PORT PHILLIP 4871 20.62 27 1176 1217
WHITEHORSE 2365 64.0 296 1050 1348

 

In Glen Eira, the relationship between single house replacements and multi unit development is around 1:74. That means that for every single new house built, there are 74 apartments built. With just under 39 square km, and no open space to speak of density, infrastructure, traffic, will inevitably be impacted upon.

So what does the Discussion Paper propose, or even ask, in response to these trends? What can the Planning Scheme do to halt the further erosion of residential amenity? If we are to go on the questions proposed it would seem that very little can be done. We do not agree and feature some preliminary questions below that residents might like to consider asking at the forums. We welcome any other suggestions that readers would like to proffer.

  • Will council be introducing any Environmental Sustainability or Water Sensitive Urban Design policies into its planning scheme as Bayside, Yarra, Stonnington, Whitehorse and other councils have done? If not, why not?
  • Will Council be introducing Parking Precinct Overlays into its RGZ and GRZ zoned areas to manage traffic in its centres? If not, why not? Will Council be creating the long promised Parking Precinct Plan for its activity centres? If not, why not?
  • Will Council be introducing any tree protection measures into its Planning Scheme in order to halt moonscaping as other councils have done? If not, why not?
 

March 30, 2016

News Flash: Wynne Orders Review

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

It is our understanding that Minister Wynne has ordered Glen Eira to finally undertake a Planning Scheme Review. He has also rejected we believe council’s attempt for an extension to the deadline he set.

Pages from 201604-ge-news

 

March 20, 2016

Racecourse Latest

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

Here is a summary of what we know in relation to the Caulfield Racecourse:

  • There are 4 (not 2) Land Management Plans for the racecourse. Two are by the Trustees – one is a plan that includes training and the other plan is designed without training facilities. The third Land Management Plan is from the MRC (with State Government funding). The fourth plan (yet to be completed we understand) comes from the Melbourne Planning Authority (MPA) whose brief is to come up with a ‘precinct plan’ for Caulfield.
  • The role of the MPA and its recommendations are crucial since both Plan Melbourne and Plan Melbourne Refresh designate ‘Caulfield’ (or what we presume to correlate with the Phoenix Precinct) as a major ‘employment hub’. Issues such as zoning, open space, transport and development are to feature prominently. Whether or not this plan will incorporate parts of Stonnington (as it should) we do not know at this point.
  • So we now appear to have the most farcical situation possible. The MPA as the overarching authority will bring down a ‘precinct plan’ that in all probability is not co-ordinated with the State Government’s review of the zones, or the Better Apartments review, or even the consolidation of Plan Melbourne Refresh.
  • Monash University is closing Berwick campus and seeking to rezone the land and then undoubtedly aims to sell it off for residential/mixed use development. That will provide them with the necessary funds to proceed full bore with their Fusion project for the Caulfield Campus. We remind readers that this involves (at this stage) the development of 800+ student accommodation facilities, plus the development of the entire Plaza area.
  • We also believe that Council were offered the opportunity to be ‘the committee of management’ for the centre of the racecourse but knocked this back. Whether all councillors were made aware of this ‘offer’ is a moot point.
  • The trustees will go, but what will replace them is still to be determined. Apparently the Minister does not have the power to sack them. Legislation has to be rescinded first, and then new legislation introduced.
  • Community groups will be presenting to a parliamentary committee in early April. What influence these presentations will have, and how genuine the intent to listen to community views, remains to be seen.
  • Yesterday (March 19th) there was another concert. Once again, the noise levels were unacceptable and could be heard from a kilometre away!

Some observations on the release of the minutes from 2014 –

  • Why these minutes should appear now (18 months later) is open to speculation. The fact that neither the agenda, nor the minutes from the last meeting were published does not fill us with confidence that things are changing on the Trust. It will be interesting to see whether any agenda and/or minutes will be published for the March 30 meeting.
  • Only one MRC member was highlighted in these minutes in relation to conflict of interest. Given that leases were discussed means, in our view, that ALL MRC members of the trust could be perceived to have a conflict of interest and not just one individual.
  • The alleged 2009 ‘governance’ document has never seen the light of day.
  • The fact that councillor representatives are ‘gagged’ is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is the fact that these same councillors have accepted this situation!

CONCLUSION

  • An all mighty mess that has lasted for 150 years and looks like continuing for some time yet.

PS: the October 2014 minutes are uploaded here

 

March 15, 2016

The Racecourse

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

cr

 

March 1, 2016

What A Farce!

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

Government, Trustees, and Council should hang their heads in shame for repeatedly turning a blind eye to the continued reprehensible behaviour of the Melbourne Racing Club. We know that the Department, Council, and the Police were inundated with complaints from residents near and far over the recent ‘rave’ concert at the racecourse. And not a word (of course) from Glen Eira City Council nor its trustee representatives.

rave

rad

 

February 24, 2016

Skyrail, Politics & A Dysfunctional Council

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
[36] Comments 

PS: We’ve put up a comment, but on reflection believe that it should be more prominent and accessible to readers. Here is what we wrote:

The extent to which this entire issue has become a political football where the Liberals bash Labor and Labor bashes the Liberals and the Greens are content to sit back and see the fur fly is reprehensible all round. We have gone back over the Records of Assembly and what is literally quite staggering is that the LXRA October presentation that Delahunty refers to included two prominent ‘apologies’ (ie neither of these councillors attended). They were DELAHUNTY AND OKOTEL.

Admittedly there were subsequent meetings and another ‘presentation’ but the impression (deliberately?) created from both Okotel’s and Delahunty’s comments at council meeting was that both were in attendance. Perhaps quite fitting that it should be one from each side of politics that with their sins of omission and spin seek to further obfuscate and turn this into a political football. As we have repeatedly stated – SHAME UPON THEM ALL

This is a very, very long post – but an important one. We ask all readers to carefully consider the diverse and contradictory statements made here and the underlying politics that colours everything!

The Skyrail petition included: no options provided to residents and ‘sky rail was never presented’ for consultation. Petition asked that consultation be undertaken to ‘determine whether this is the community’s preferred option’ plus including studies on noise and other environmental impacts.

Esakoff moved that the petition be noted and that council supports level crossing removal. Council writes to all MPs and newspapers advocating for no ‘elevated skyrail through our city’ until after there has been ‘full’ consultation and that LXRA reps plus government holds a ‘public forum’ on the issue. Pilling seconded.

ESAKOFF: (reading from a prepared ‘speech’). Said that she would ‘advocate strongly’ for residents about ‘their concern’ for skyrail being ‘the preferred option’ when they ‘and indeed councillors were not aware’ of the option. The concerns were ‘lack of consultation, visual amenity’ and ‘in some cases year round overshadowing’. Said that everyone wanted separation and that council ‘had advocated for a decade or more’ for separation. Stated that skyrail may be cheaper but ‘cheaper is rarely better’. Residents ‘want to be consulted in a meaningful way’ and decisions to come after consultation and not by ‘one on ones’. This is a ‘disaster that has befallen them’. Said she ‘doubts’ the usefulness of the 11 MCGs of open space and ‘linear parks’ which will be ‘narrow strips’ and only suitable for a bike track. Council ‘could’ buy land to ‘incorporate into this’ area but with ratecapping that becomes impossible. There’s also the question of maintenance and what they don’t know is the ‘financial implications’ of this. So if no benefit is provided to residents then the money of ratepayers is ‘better spent’ on ‘meaningful open space’. (applause)

PILLING: said he lives in Murrumbeena and is ‘quite close’ to the proposed skyrail and is ‘well aware of the issue’. He has received over 100 emails from residents and will advocate strongly for residents. ‘We are certainly concerned about the lack of consultation’. Agrees that no decision be made until after consultation and that there has been ‘misinformation’ put out because of the lack of information from the government. People need to be ‘better informed’.

LIPSHUTZ: skyrail could be the best thing ‘since sliced bread’ but he doesn’t know because he hasn’t been given the ‘opportunity’ to find out ‘what the alternatives are’. On the East-West link the government consulted with the community ‘but now they’ve ignored that’. Sky rail ‘might be wonderful but how about telling the community why it’s wonderful?’ and let people tell ‘the government what they actually want’. What we now have is a ‘monstrosity’ where there will be ‘graffiti’, ‘crime’ and 11 MCGs that are ‘useless’ and ‘we’re told as a council’ that it’s ‘wonderful’. Said he read one newspaper article where Andrews didn’t take this to cabinet and decided ‘himself’. Claimed that if he was ‘cynical’ he would wonder why skyrail isn’t in the marginal seats of Bentleigh and instead going into a ‘safe Labor seat’. Consultation ‘is very important’ and that when dealing with big issues like this and ‘people’s lives, people’s property, people’s values’ then ‘it is so important to consult the community’. Said that when council did GESAC they consulted extensively via forums and ‘hearing what the community had to say’. Booran reservoir is the same where ‘we went to the community’ and asked ‘what do you want’. The government didn’t do this and ‘they didn’t even look at any other alternative’. (applause)

MAGEE: the government ‘will decide’ whether to ‘go ahead’ with skyrail. Said there is currently a ‘four week consultation period’ and they will ‘get to see what the results’ from this are. He is ‘more interested in the process’ and whether this is ‘appropriate’ and ‘just’. Council would be in a ‘much stronger position’ if they had plans about what is happening in the ‘corridor’ proposed. Said that Guy wrote to all councils and took away their powers over the land in the corridor so that ‘no control’ over parking. If this hadn’t happened then council and the planning scheme still had these powers then council would have ‘grounds to argue’ and to ‘refuse’ but ‘unfortunately’ all that council can now do is ‘listen to the community and speak on their behalf’. Unfortunately Guy and David Davis who are the ‘champions of this railroad, this skyrail’ are the ones who ‘set it up’. (applause)

OKOTEL: said that previously when there was consultation about grade separation ‘consultation was narrow’ and ‘wasn’t genuine’ and that council were told they could have ‘input’ into what ‘would occur around development’ around the area. Said that was her ‘understanding that we would have the ability’ to have a say. And ‘my understanding this year is that this is no longer the case’. Now they’ve told council that there would be skyrail and that the land would be controlled by the government and that they ‘would hand over maintenance to council’. Given ratecapping it ‘will be more and more difficult’ to maintain these areas. Said that in her time on council has ‘never seen the community so outraged’ about an issue. Thanked residents for their ‘passionate advocacy’ and that without their ‘passionate advocacy we would not be in the position we are to take a strong stance’ to government. Council is ‘your voice’ and they will advocate that ‘things don’t happen without your input’. Said that council put to the rail authority that the ‘rail should go underground’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘point of order’ on accuracy.

PILLING: told Okotel that he didn’t think ‘that was correct’.

DELAHUNTY: said her point of order was about the ‘truthfulness’ of Okotel’s statement in suggesting ‘that council had a position that rail should go under road’. Said that council ‘never had a position’.

OKOTEL: said that her ‘understanding’ was that the majority of councillors thought it should go underground. Went on and asked residents to ‘put your trust in your council that we will do the right thing by you’. (applause)

PILLING: said he was ‘very conscious that what we say to our community is correct’.

SOUNNESS: went through his background on planning and being on the Transport committee rep with other councils and so is very interested in the issue. Concerned that in ’40 to 60 years time’ Melbourne will be double in population but without the necessary infrastructure. Need to ensure that more people ‘move about more efficiently with less impact’. ‘Grade separation’ can make the system ‘more efficient’ but there will be ‘trade offs’. Knows that designers are ‘doing their best’ and so do ‘technicians’ who are ‘passionate about urban design’. Said he did see proposals for ‘rail above’ and other options but ‘why this is the best option, I’m not too sure’. Wants to know why it’s the best option so ‘I can explain to you’. Stated that he ‘appreciates’ the petition and wants to see ‘consultation’ go further but as a council it is not their domain but a ‘state infrastructure matter’. Hoped that information would come out so people would understand why we’re ‘going this way’ so council can ‘adjust’. (applause)

HYAMS: claimed there was ‘no reason’ for council not to accept the motion. Said it was important that ‘we are united’ as a council behind the ‘principles of decent community consultation’. Went on to say that there’s ‘nothing in the motion’ that is not in line with council’s ‘position’. The flood of emails and questions is ‘proof of how poor this consultation process has been’. Stated it should ‘have been done’ like the Liberals did with Ormond where they presented 4 options and then ‘chose the one the people were behind’. On Magee’s earlier point about Guy removing council power ‘that happens with all major’ projects and governments. Here a decision was made ‘and then consulting on it’. On claims that ‘this is a party political campaign’ admitted that ‘the opposition has got behind this’ but that ‘doesn’t mean that the opposition is running the campaign’. Quoted from some recent articles in The Age – Farah Tomazzin, Clay Lucas, and others. Went on to say that as a result of some of the emails he had received he learnt about impacts that he hadn’t thought of before such as the skyrail ‘going through Neighbourhood Character Overlays’ and ‘neighbourhood residential zones’. Asked then that if the project goes through ‘will we be able’ to continue to keep ‘those protections’ on the neighbourhoods since the government is ‘seeking’ to change Plan Melbourne so that there is ‘more development in existing suburbs’. Other impacts are overshadowing and since the tracks will be narrow whether these would comply with Glen Eira’s planning scheme. Thought that residents ‘have a right’ to the forum and that ‘all questions are answered in public’. When something that is ‘so unexpected and so life changing’ is put before people ‘they have the right to a proper consultation’. (applause)

DELAHUNTY: supported the motion and thanked Esakoff and residents and thought it was right that ‘there be a public forum’. ‘Concerned’ that the ‘one on one sessions’ aren’t ‘doing what it is that you want them to do’. Right that the petition be accepted, but her ‘concern’ is that it is ‘constituted on an incorrect premise’ but ‘that we are responsible for that incorrect premise’ – ‘that we didn’t know’. ‘We did know’. Said that council had participated with ‘1500 others’ on ‘what this separation project might look like’ and that was ‘some time last year’. Said that council asked for ‘open space, bike tracks’ like others and in ‘early October’ claimed that council were ‘presented’ with ‘some options and one of those was elevated rail’. ‘I am genuinely sorry for the misinformation that comes out of this council’. Said this wasn’t a ‘surprise’ to her because it was ‘pictured’ quite clearly

OKOTEL: point of order on ‘incorrect information’ in that the ‘option of elevated rail was never presented’.

COMMENTS FROM GALLERY – IE ‘WHO’S TELLING THE TRUTH?’

PILLING: ‘there was a range of options’

DELAHUNTY: said that this presentation was in ‘early October’ and ‘it didn’t quite lay out what we’ve now seen’. Agreed that the process was inadequate and ‘not taken to residents’. Said that ‘they haven’t done a great job at consultation and they need to do better’. Didn’t think that ‘one on one’ was good enough and she supports ‘you being able to turn up here tonight and ask public questions’. But ‘unfortunately most of my councillor colleagues don’t support that’.

HYAMS : point of order and ‘that is false and defamatory’ and asked that Delahunty withdraw.

DELAHUNTY: said that she had in the past moved a motion asking that meeting procedures be changed so that ‘members of the public’ could ‘speak and that was voted down by a majority’ of councillors. ‘So I stand by’ the comment.

Multiple calls for point of order

PILLING: said that this was ‘out of context’

DELAHUNTY: back to LXRA and repeated that she didn’t think ‘their consultation’ processes have been adequate. Also ‘wanted to give an apology for some of the misinformation that has come from council that hasn’t helped your genuine concerns’. ‘Some of that is that we did not know’. Said that in the agenda papers there is a letter from the Minister ‘which again reiterates elevated rail proposals’. ‘Council did not tell you properly, we did not take you with us’ and LXRA ‘didn’t take you with us’. ‘It wasn’t done properly so I support the motion’.

OKOTEL: question to Delahunty. Said she didn’t know about the proposal for skyrail and is ‘surprised that you state you knew’. Question was ‘if you knew why didn’t you say anything earlier?’

DELAHUNTY: ‘We all knew. There was an authority presentation to council’. Said she’s got the ‘presentation package’ and ‘there are pictures of elevated rail’ including ‘some of the ones that are being used now’. Agreed that it ‘might be for a lack of understanding’ why this ‘wasn’t given to the community’.

UPROAR FROM GALLERY

PILLING: admitted that the presentation referred to by Delahunty ‘certainly had pictures and some concepts’ but that they were in the ‘similar position then of not knowing’ what would come out of this. ‘Council genuinely did not know’ of the skyrail option would be the option. ‘We found out on February 7th the same day as you’. Said that in the presentation there were ‘a lot of things floated’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘we didn’t know it was the final option’ but they knew ‘it was on the table’. Thus the ‘premise of the petition’ is that ‘we were not aware’, ‘we didn’t know that it was an option’. Thought that it was ‘important’ that people realise that ‘we did know that it was an option’. (uproar from gallery)

PILLING: repeated that council knew but ‘did not know that it was going to be the preferred option’.

COMMENT FROM GALLERY – ‘WE DON’T CARE THAT YOU KNEW. WE DIDN’T KNOW’ AND OTHER COMMENTS LIKE ‘WHAT ABOUT INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY’. ‘YOU’RE TERRIBLE ALL OF YOU’.

PILLING: was ‘sure’ that ‘everyone wanted to get to the vote’ on this.

OKOTEL: another question to chair. Referred to the presentation and Pilling’s understanding that council were given 4 options and that ‘you were referring to small pictures’

PILLING: said that ‘the bottom line’ was that like residents ‘council did not know that the skyrail would be the preferred option’.

OKOTEL: asked about the ‘pictures from around the globe’ and whether this was ‘being consulted on rather than the 4 options presented?’

PILLING; ‘as I recall’ they got the same information as the ‘general public’ . ‘We didn’t have any more knowledge’.

SOUNNESS: wanted to answer Okotel. Said that at the presentation the reps were speaking mainly about ‘rail under but they did not rule out rail over’. ‘they showed pictures indicating the potential’ of this. They said ‘it was in the mix’. So from ‘my point of view, we knew’ but most of the attention was on rail under. ‘From my point of view it was an option’.

COMMENTS FROM GALLERY – WHY HAVEN’T YOU ‘SHARED WITH US’? ‘YOU HAVE BEEN DERELICT IN YOUR DUTY’

OKOTEL: another question. About the presentation whether the presentation was showing the ‘elevation of the’ entire train line? (applause)

SOUNNESS: said ‘they didn’t say much about it’ because they were still getting information. ‘My impression’ was that it could have been under, over.

PILLING: they could ‘argue’ about ‘detail and who recollects what’ but the important thing is the petition and councillor support for residents.

ESAKOFF: ‘from my perspective we did not know about skyrail’. They ‘saw a picture of skyrail’ from maybe America, and this ‘was amongst a lot of other pictures’ of grade separation in other places. Skyrail ‘was not put down as an option here’. ‘My recollection is the same as Cr Okotel’s’ and their picture was ‘a bridge and not a 6km skyrail’. (applause) Also if other councillors knew ‘because they had close connections then it should have been more forthcoming’ so they could ‘inform the rest of us’.

DELAHUNTY: asked for withdrawel of comment

ESAKOFF: if it was ‘offensive I’m very happy to withdraw it’. Went on to quote the Government Architect statement of recent times and ‘pre-election policies’. (applause). Said she went to the meetings of LXRA and that it was too small and ‘very little information provided’ just ‘pretty pictures’. Also went to the ‘rally on the weekend’ where ‘residents told their stories’. These residents felt ‘that an actual disaster’ had happened ‘in our community’ ‘similar to’ and earthquake and’ this is how these people are feeling’. At these meetings people weren’t allowed to ‘take photographs’, ‘have representation’. ‘they sit there absolutely stunned’. They feel they have nowhere to go but to put their houses on the market. ‘It is a concern’ for families who have ‘built up a nest egg’ in their homes ‘to have this taken from beneath them’. ‘To hear stories on the weekend – it brought tears to anyone’s eyes’. (applause) So if there is a forum ‘they would have to be moved by these stories’. Said they ‘expected the same process’ as for North Road and McKinnon Road ‘where the community was listened to’. Hoped that the motion would ‘provide the avenue for a real consultation’. Thought that there was ‘still’ some room ‘for movement’ and didn’t think ‘this was signed off as yet’. (applause)

MOTION PUT: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (APPLAUSE)

 

 

 

 

February 23, 2016

‘A Failure To Communicate – Or Understand?’

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

Tonight’s council meeting was packed to the rafters with residents – most were concerned with Skyrail. A petition was submitted and this engendered an hour’s discussion where councillors voted unanimously to accept the petition, and seek a public forum. Full details will follow tomorrow. However, the following need highlighting:

  • Disagreement amongst councillors as to whether or not they were briefed by LXRA on the possibility of skyrail well before the official announcement. Acrimonious exchanges between Okotel and Delahunty and overall lapses of memory from Pilling and others.
  • Political grandstanding all round – ie quite stunning how ‘consultation’ is so important to these councillors now, but not when it comes to most things in Glen Eira like the introduction of the zones!
  • Lobo officially ‘censured’ with motion moved by Pilling and Okotel to feature on website and all major dailies and the Leader. Labelled a ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, and much more. Lobo was absent from the meeting.
  • Delahunty motion for public forum on security defeated. Voting against – Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Okotel.
  • 161 public questions submitted. Only 15 ‘representative’ questions read out and answered.
  • New CEO in attendance. Introduced but made no comments.

 

 

February 22, 2016

More Politicking!

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

Opposition wants to work with government to raise cash to avoid skytrains on the Frankston line

February 22, 2016 9:00am

Nicholas Payne Mordialloc Chelsea Leader
 

STATE Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has urged the State Government to work with him to “save Melbourne’s Riviera” from sky trains.

With decisions on the southern part of the Frankston rail corridor yet to be made, Mr Guy said he was “prepared to work with the government” to raise enough money via new Port of Melbourne legislation to run trains underground.

Mr Guy said talk of underground tunnelling difficulties caused by a high water table in the beachside areas was “not an excuse at all.”

“If you can put a man on the moon, you can dip a level crossing on the Frankston line,” he said.

“When they were building the CityLink tunnels, that was in one of the most geologically unsound areas in Melbourne — and yet we have two enormous tunnels which operate just fine and have for the last 15 years.

“There are absolutely no engineering studies that say it is utterly infeasible to do that.”

There are eight level crossings between Cheltenham and Frankston listed for removal, with work due to get underway in 2018.

Shadow Planning Minister David Davis joined Mr Guy at Edithvale Station last week, along with South Eastern Metropolitan Region MP Inga Peulich, Kingston Central Ward councillor Geoff Gledhill and concerned community members, to discuss the crossing removals.

Mr Guy said the opposition’s offer to work with the State Government was the “first time you’ve seen an opposition do this for decades in Victoria”.

He said if the State Government could “present a sensible piece of legislation” on the Port lease, he would “be happy to tie that sale to putting level crossings underground”.

State Treasurer Tim Pallas told Leader that Mr Guy’s comments were being made from “a position of ignorance”, and the State Government has always been honest about there being no “magical one-size-fits-all solution” to the issue.

“Every crossing removal is different,” Mr Pallas said.

“We’re not coming to a solution with a predetermined position, people can’t rewrite history on this.”

Mr Pallas said the local consultation process will begin this week, with a removal method to be decided by mid-2016 and a “design solution” determined by 2018.

“There’s going to be at least two years of extensive consultation before that construction gets underway,” he said.

When asked the price difference between above and below-ground rail options on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line, the treasurer said “it’s not about cost”.

“I don’t believe there’s a great deal in the cost difference between these arrangements,” Mr Pallas said.

He said it’s more important that the project to be guided by “science and imaginative engineering solutions”.

Edithvale local Elsie Bradshaw, who has lived in the area for more than 45 years, said she was worried after seeing other “failed” examples of above-ground rail lines overseas.

“We definitely do not want this to happen,” Ms Bradshaw said.

“We know there’s going to be noise and a lot of disruption — we’re prepared to put up with that, that’s fine — but not with the rails going up nine or more storeys.”

Community advocate Dorothy Booth, who is also the chairwoman of the Friends of Mentone Station and Gardens, said she was concerned there wouldn’t be enough true consultation on the issue.

“One government organisation talking to another government organisation is not consultation — that’s not going to come up with the best outcome for the community,” Ms Booth said.

“If they persist with this here, they won’t be in government to complete it, because the community won’t stand for it.”

There are now several local petitions against the skyrails gaining support, including one from the Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum and another from the office of Inga Peulich.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/opposition-wants-to-work-with-government-to-raise-cash-to-avoid-skytrains-on-the-frankston-line/news-story/86e0f6bf4df22b9b42ca08fbd5962ec7

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »