GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

July 30, 2014

Giddy From The Spin!

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

Untitled

PS – PLEASE NOTE MR BECK’S COMMENTS!

Caulfield Village developer to challenge Glen Eira Council conditions at VCAT

  • Andrea Kellett
  • July 30, 2014 12:00AM

THE billion dollar Caulfield Village residential and retail project north of the Caulfield Racecourse is headed for VCAT.

Developer Beck Probuild has lodged an appeal against Glen Eira’s Council’s conditional approval for the first development plan.

BPG Caulfield Village director Sam Beck said: “All we are doing is appealing the clarity and consistency of some of the minor conditions of the approved Development Plan which includes engineering, design and parking.’’

“We don’t see them as significant items and we believe that we can resolve them with the Glen Eira City Council.’’

Councillors want the developer to provide 130 publicly available off-street car spaces across the site to compensate for existing on-street parks that will be lost to the project.

They also want 127 car spaces in the Smith St Precinct for use by Caulfield Tabaret/Glasshouse patrons at all times during operating hours.

Those spaces are required as part of the MRC’s permit for the tabaret and will be lost to the Caulfield Village development.

Councillors approved the first development plan by six votes to three.

The hearing is listed for September 29 and 30.

 

July 25, 2014

FYI

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

IMPAFORUM

 

July 23, 2014

Figures, Figures & More Shonky Figures!

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

The Open Space Contribution Levy has featured prominently at the last two council meetings. At the July 1st meeting the claim was that with objectors going to a Panel this is estimated to add approximately 7 months and that revenue ‘foregone’ during this time could be of the order of $2m. At last night’s council meeting the $2 million suddenly morphed into this (from the officer’s report) – At the 2013-14 rates, that would be a difference of about seven months or around $700k. Lipshutz even made up his own figures and spoke of a million dollars! The best lines however came from Hyams with his assertion that the objectors had a ‘tribal distrust of council’ and this was their ‘motivation’ for lodging objections.

Perhaps a far more reasonable take on council’s approach to collecting money from developers would be to calculate how much money has been LOST over a period of 11 years. Perhaps residents should also be seeking answers as how much land council has sold, as opposed to how much land has been purchased in order to meet the open space demands – first identified in 1987.

Even on the new ‘transparency’ so lauded by Delahunty, the figures provided in the officer’s report are fascinating – and of course entirely begs the question as to why such data is only made available now and not on a regular basis! More telling is the fact that council states that the range of rates currently applied are – 2.25% to 5.0% (maximum). So how come, when the supplied list is analysed NOT ONE SINGLE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS LIST OF 54 HAS PAID 5%? Further questions should also be asked. For example:

  • If this is truly a complete list of all payments received, then given that council admits to roughly 350+ subdivisions (according to the State Planning Activity Permit Reports for last year) and if even half are for 2 lot subdivisions and therefore exempt, what has happened to the other 175 subdivisions? Did council collect a cent? Or were all of these subdivision payments waived?
  • If on the other hand this is not a complete listing, then why hasn’t this been stated upfront?

For eleven years now (since 29/5/2003) council has done nothing to up its open space levy – even though it has been fully cognisant of the fact that open space is a premium in Glen Eira. How many millions have been lost during this time? And how much money has been lost by not even applying the full 5% that council could legally apply?

Compared to the 11 years of doing absolutely nothing, a delay of even 7 months, seems very worthwhile in order to ensure that an amendment is passed which will truly benefit the community!

 

July 22, 2014

More ‘Clerical Errors’?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

How many more ‘clerical errors’ will be allowed to go through to the keeper before heads start to roll? How many more times will dubious statistics, fudged figures, and sheer nonsense be permitted to be put out into the public domain by this administration, and no-one is held accountable? How much longer will residents have to wait before councillors do what they are elected to do and start asking some telling questions and demand correct, and 100% honest answers?

Presented below are two tables published by council. The first derives from a media release dated 18th June 2014. The second comes from Item 9.5 in the current agenda.

180614_No_reductions_in_housing_approvals_Page_1

Pages from July22-2014-AGENDA2

What is truly staggering about these tables is:

  • How on earth can the area of the Residential Growth Zone be 3.5% in June, AND DROP TO 2.2% barely a month later? Is this simply a typo? Another ‘clerical error’?
  • If indeed 1700 new dwellings have been permitted in the municipality, then Glen Eira is just on TREBLING its forecast of catering for population growth.
  • We also challenge the claim that the Neighbourhood Residential Zone equates to 78% of the municipality. Our figures tell us that it is approximately 70%.

Here are a few sentences cited from the June Media Release –

Development in local residential streets, now zoned Neighbourhood Residential, continues to be at the same low level it has been over the whole of the thirteen years covered by the graph (eg. dual occupancy).
The pattern reflects the Pareto Principle (“80–20 Rule”): 80 per cent of development takes place on 20 per cent of land.

In the first place, many of council’s own Quarterly Reports indicate that this is not the case – ie figures of only 56% in one instance and well below the 80/20 in other examples. More significantly, the term ‘development’ is cleverly employed as a substitute for ‘dwellings’. A ‘development’ and a ‘dwelling’ are not identical. Actual ‘development’ in local, residential streets is occurring at alarming levels.

 

July 19, 2014

CCC: – Calcutta & Chicken Coops Combined!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Item 9.8 – Minimum floor space requirements

This item is in response to a Request for a Report from the previous council meeting. On par with so many other potential initiatives, Glen Eira’s response is to sit on its hands and do bugger all. Everything is always someone else’s problem to solve! Below is what was asked and the underlined sections are what we believe has not been satisfactorily responded to in the officer’s report.

Minimum floor space requirements for dwellings in other jurisdictions including internationally and what benefit or detriment is created by these requirements;

How minimum floor space requirements could be beneficial for Glen Eira in the case that such requirements are adopted by the Victorian state; and

How Glen Eira Council could advocate for state-wide minimum floor space requirements such as through a planning amendment.

The report by the City of Melbourne on its Unit developments and liveability as it may apply to the City of Glen Eira.

The report starts off with a full page of philosophical waffle that works to deflect attention from the questions asked and instead resorts to the usual ruse of how good the current planning system is in that setbacks and height limits do the job of helping to determine the size of apartments and even internal amenity. Setbacks and height limits (if they are applied that is) only determine overall site coverage. They don’t determine how many units the developer can cram into the resulting available space.

More waffle and unsubstantiated opinion then follows – It is likely that if a minimum dwelling size is dictated, it would tend to become the default size and counter productive to dwelling diversity.

Really! Then the City of Melbourne’s research must all be nonsense for them to claim the exact opposite — The predominance of high-cost, one and two bedroom, small and inadaptable apartments is driving the establishment of a homogenous population in regards to household income, age and employment of our residents (City of Melbourne, 2013b). (page 41).

The truth of the matter is that Glen Eira already has a defacto ‘default’ size of one and two bedroom dwellings that contribute nothing to housing diversity. If council was truly concerned about ‘liveability’ and ‘diversity’ then it would publish figures on: how many 1 bedroom apartments have been built in the past 3 years? How many two bedroom apartments have been built in the past 3 years? What is the average size of these apartments? On this point, we note that the Caulfield Village development of 442 units (8 of which are town houses) contains over 200 units of less than 60 square metres in size with quite a few well under 50 square metres! Yet, there was not one single word in any of council’s documentation about this issue and not one word issued from any councillor. Total silence about access to sunlight, access to public open space, and ‘internal amenity’. Size was a taboo subject altogether. When asked at the planning conference, residents were told that these aspects would be ‘investigated’ and put into officer recommendations. We challenge anyone to find a single sentence in the resulting report that focuses on these questions, and therefore ‘social amenity’ and ‘liveability’!

We then find another gem in the officer’s report – It is considered that it is difficult to argue that town planning is best placed and therefore should intervene in dwelling size to a greater extent than it currently does. Why is it ‘difficult’ to argue when countless cities worldwide are doing exactly this? Moreland City Council in fact has introduced a draft Amendment (uploaded here) which attempts to set specific standards for size, environmental design, open space, etc. Strange isn’t it that the officer’s report just happens to overlook this important fact? The reason of course is that council intends to do absolutely nothing that might impinge on development and rate revenue. So without any shame we’re back to the old chestnut of ‘leave it to government’!

And let’s also forget all those essentials of ‘liveability’ that the Melbourne City Council defines quite clearly – The size of an apartment is often fundamental to achieving good levels of amenity. New homes must have enough space for basic daily activities, be able to accommodate standard sized furniture, have storage space for everyday items and be adaptable and flexible in their layout to allow for different lifestyles and users. (page 36)

The most hypocritical statement in this entire report comes with reference to ResCode and the assertion that the ‘standards’ set by this protocol ‘must be met’. We ask residents to consider how many planning applications come before council and do NOT ADHERE to the standards are granted permits. Time and again officer reports are stacked with such comments as no ‘unreasonable impact’ and so on. Council can’t have it both ways. Either the standards should be applied wholeheartedly, or they are not worth the paper they are written on.

We would also like to point out a recent disturbing trend in officer reports on planning applications. Not too long ago the reports would very clearly ennumerate the NUMBERS of 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units proposed. That is now gone and readers are left to decipher from the car parking standards what is what – an impossible task since both one and two bedrooms are required to have the same number of car spaces allotted. Please make up your own minds if such omissions are deliberate or simply an ‘oversight’!

Finally, we have uploaded the two relevant City of Melbourne’s documents (here & here) and urge readers to compare what is stated in these documents as opposed to council’s once again ‘do nothing’ report. And just for the record, readers may also find the following extracts from the Melbourne efforts very enlightening –

The trend in the City of Melbourne, however, is for increasingly small apartments with 40 per cent having less than 50 m2 of floor space, the minimum size for one bedroom apartments in Sydney, Adelaide and London. Consumer research in London (Bartlett K et al, 2002) shows that space is high on the list of priorities of the increasing number of one-person households and that criticism about lack of space is expressed by all groups of home buyers with singles just as vociferous as families. (page 36)

Evidence on attracting and retaining families in inner urban, mixed income communities (Silverman E. et al, 2005) reviewed several London case studies and found that these communities work best when the homes are designed with families in mind, with adequate storage, ample kitchens, family bathrooms and access to outdoor space where possible. (page 36)

Fundamental to a resident’s quality of life is the size and layout of an apartment. No amount of sensitive or innovative design can compensate for apartments that are too small to meet the basic living requirements of the household. (page 48)

And from the discussion paper –

The evidence suggests that letting the market create diversity is unrealistic and that it is impossible to predict or fully anticipate market tendencies, particularly as the housing market is now operating within a global context. (p.51)

In Victoria, apartments are primarily designed to meet the national Building Code of Australia (BCA) standards which is driving a minimum compliance approach. It is understood that the BCA standards were not prepared with consideration for the type of higher density development currently being constructed and are therefore met too easily. The case study analysis concluded that a lack of clear planning policy outcomes together with current BCA requirements is resulting in poor apartment quality in Melbourne. (p.70)

 

July 18, 2014

Agenda

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

There’s much in the current agenda that deserves comment. The most significant is that the MRC or their developers have lodged an objection to the miniscule conditions imposed by council on the Caulfield Village development. What a surprise! The VCAT hearing is set down for September.

It is also important to note that the public relations arm (via Newton) is out in full force with reports designed to both gild the lily, and to obfuscate the real issues on Amendment C120 (open space levies) and housing approval statistics. We will report in detail on both these matters in the days ahead.

Staying true to form, there is another report on what council could do regarding apartment sizes. Again, no surprises from this ‘do nothing council’. The recommendation is that regulating size is a state issue and all council should do is ‘advocate’ via the Municipal Association and have ResCode updated.

Readers also need to have a close look at the Advisory Environment Committee’s set of minutes. The trend to ensure that as little as possible is made public continues. Advisory committees should never be the place for important policy discussions, especially where officer reports remain secret, and the public is barred from attendance. This transgresses all notions of transparency and good governance, especially when many committee recommendations are then simply accepted by council without any open debate, or very often without the accompanying data to justify those recommendations. Here are some items from these minutes that readers might like to ponder:

That the Chair of the Environment Advisory Committee write to Vision Super to ask for information on their Ethical Procurement Policy and practice.

3.5.3. A letter was sent on 15 April 2014.

3.5.4. ACTION: Officers will seek an update on whether there has been a response to the letter and follow up if necessary

5.1. Car sharing

5.1.1. Traffic Department have advised that there is a trial underway (MS).

5.1.2. ACTION: Officers will provide further update on the current trial at next meeting.

 

5.2. Glen Huntly Reservoir Proposed Park

5.2.1. JD raised the question of whether a community garden should be trialled at the new park.

5.2.2. Discussion included that the proposed park is currently out for community consultation which has been informed by several consultations to-date.

5.2.3. JD plans to put in his own submission to the Booran Road Consultation process.

5.2.4. ACTION: Officers will seek clarification about the timing of Open Space Strategy action to investigate potential locations for community gardens in Glen Eira.

Last, but not least, there’s this from the in camera items – Under Section 89(2)(f) ‘legal advice’ which relates to ‘Code of Conduct – Possible Additions’. Residents should expect more ‘tightening’ (ie nooses) placed around the necks of councillors we predict, with this one!

 

July 11, 2014

The Future?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

Yesterday’s post concerning Carnegie, Murrumbeena rail crossings/station redevelopments, noted that the company involved was MTR. Here is a snapshot of what they also do –

UntitledSource: http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/properties/prop_dev_sdd.html

 

July 8, 2014

MRC: ‘Tearing The Walls Down’ Or Building Them Up & Up?

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

PS: Clearly the MRC and its associates do not like the negative publicity they are receiving. Their response? To pull the promo video from YouTube! As always, actions speak louder than words, and this action ‘screams’ louder than most!

Towards the end of this video we are informed that the Smith St. Precinct will now contain two 22 storeys in height. By the time the plans come in, no-one should be surprised if this becomes much, much higher. So much for Council’s 20 storey “height limit” that was announced with such fanfare years ago! We also have to chuckle at the gloating, phrase of ‘the might of the MRC’. There are also countless other ‘changes’ to what the Development Plan envisaged.

This ‘might’ and council’s total impotence and lack of trying perhaps, is brought out via another public question that was asked last Tuesday night. Residents should be told:

  • what has council done about this further breach of the ‘agreement’?
  • why has council remained silent on any aspect of the agreement for the past 3 years?
  • what ‘negotiations’, if any, have taken place between the MRC and council in relation to meeting the terms of the ‘agreement’?

The public question –

In June 2008, a Joint Communique was signed by the Melbourne Racing Club and Glen Eira Council which related to the use of Public Open Space in the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse. With regards to relocation of training from the Caulfield
Racecourse, included in the Joint Communique, is the statement that; “The MRC will provide Council with an annual update on progress” Could Council please provide all annual progress updates received from the MRC since the Joint Communique was signed.

Council’s ‘response –

Council has received no updates.

The management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land is currently the subject of a Performance Audit by the Auditor General for Victoria.

 

July 4, 2014

Dear Dorothy Dix………

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

Sounness moved the motion to accept and added the clause that the financial report ‘disclose’ open space contributions. Delahunty seconded.

SOUNNESS: said that the amendment ‘follows on’ from the Open Space Strategy. Acknowledged the ‘problem’ of lack of open space and that with new development people should have access to ‘new public open space’. Went through some features of the Open Space Strategy such as biodiversity, and how to ‘fund these developments’. Importantly the amendment wants to increase these contributions. Said that the ‘standard rate is 4% and lots of councils have 4%. When there were greenfields developers may have been happy to give a bit ‘of dirt’ but in developed residential areas they wouldn’t want to give up a ‘unit 2 of the third storey’ and so prefer to pay cash. Spoke about the objections and ‘some very good points were put forward about transparency’ and consequently there has been a ‘robust conversation’ amongst councillors and there’s been a ‘number of conversations’ about ‘what’s fair, what’s reasonable’ and comparing to other councils and how all this ‘refers to our future expectations’. Asked a question of Akehurst about why under this amendment the contributions wouldn’t ‘be appealable to VCAT’?

AKEHURST: said that currently there’s a ‘base rate’ based on numbers and that ‘other factors can add to tne percentages’ and these are ‘subjective’ and so can be challenged. He gave the example of ‘proximity’ to existing open space. Went on to say that council assesses one cost and the developer assesses this differently and figure that the money spent on challenging council is worthwhile. This also costs council money in going to VCAT. With the C120 there’s no sliding scale and there’s one rate for ‘every case’ and everywhere and the developer doesn’t have ‘grounds to argue for a discount’. Said that the amendment was there to give ‘more certainty’, more ‘revenue’ and without the associated costs of going to VCAT.

SOUNNESS: said that one of the objections had noted how the money was ‘expended’. He gave the example of the alma club developer paying money and asked how this money was spent in helping achieve open space around the Alma Club. Wanted to know if the amendment ‘speaks’ to the ‘direction’ of expenditure of the levy.

AKEHURST: said that the amendment was ‘about how you raise revenue’ and that the amendment ‘optimises that collection’ and then it becomes ‘up to council how it is spent’. That is then ‘expenditure’ and ‘council has a policy’ that stipulates spending the money on acquisition of ‘new open space’. Council would also have to spend money outside of its collected levies to bring these places ‘up to standard’.

SOUNNESS: then asked that when the amendment goes to the panel whether they have ‘the capacity to direct expenditure’?

AKEHURST: ‘no’ – the panel is bound by the law which says that money raised is ‘spent on land acquisition and improvements to existing public open space’. Said that every council then makes up its mind about spending on existing and additional open space and repeated the policy about spending 100% of the levy on ‘additional open space’ in Glen Eira and ‘zero’ of these contributions on ‘existing open space’. Went on to say that the policy is ‘binding on all staff’ and the use of the ‘revenues’. There will be accounting of the money in ‘each budget and each annual report’ and that ‘there is nothing that council could do’ which isn’t ‘already in place’.

SOUNNESS: reiterated that the amendment basically ‘seeks to increase the revenue’ and that there’s ‘only so much that can be done’ with how the money is spent. Summed up that the amendment wants to implement what the community has ‘endorsed’ in the Open Space Strategy. Said that the objections had ‘raised some issues that have been quite valuable’ and like the landswap it’s ‘very good to see where the money goes’ and that’s why he’s added the clause about reporting in the financial review.

DELAHUNTY: said that open space issues has ‘occupied a lot of councillors’ time’ and that when she first thought of becoming a councillor, open space was one of the ‘platforms’ that she wanted to run on. As a parent she sees ‘how important’ even ‘small pockets of green’ is. The problem is big and it will take a ‘step by step’ process and this included the Open Space Strategy and ‘getting the right people to write the strategy’ and have the ‘public contribute’ to the strategy. Council also ‘took a policy change initiative’ to ‘fence off the funds’ that would be received from contributions. The amendment is now the ‘next really important piece’ in the process. This is the end result of a long ‘calculation that is done by the right people’, and had public consultation. There is now the motion to put this to a panel and she asked Akehurst ‘what does this mean’?

AKEHURST: said that the Minister ‘appoints a panel’. Council and the objectors then ‘put their view’ before the panel. The panel then reports back to council ‘in the form of a recommendation’. Their recommendations could be that the amendment be adopted by council as exhibited, or ‘in some other form’. Council doesn’t have to accept the panel’s recommendations ‘but it would need to have serious reasons not to do that’. It then goes to the minister for approval if council has adopted the recommendations of the panel.

DELAHUNTY: ‘What’s the downside risk’?

AKEHURST: said that the panel might think that the 5.7% ‘is too high’.

DELAHUNTY: councillors had read the submissions and thought that many of the points ‘were correct’. Other things could be ‘clarified’ but she again asked Akehurst ‘what this would do to the process’?

AKEHURST: said that there were a ‘couple of errors’ and these were corrected. Amendments are a ‘statutory process’ and that council can’t change things in any ‘material way’ if it’s already gone on public exhibition. So even if there are submissions that ‘have merit’ but weren’t ‘part of the exhibited’ amendment ‘they could not be incorporated into’ this amendment because they would ‘depart’ from what’s already been exhibited.

DELAHUNTY: then asked whether Akehurst ‘was surprised’ that there were no objections to the 5.7%

AKHURST: ‘yes’

DELAHUNTY: said that she was ‘surprised and delighted’ and that at ‘heart’ everyone ‘understands’ that there are challenges that have to be fixed and she was pleased with community involvement because it’s an ’emotive issue’ but council wants to ‘move on’. Said that Sounness’ amendment will increase ‘transparency’ in ‘making sure they are reported upon’ in a ‘separate and visible line item’ in the financial report. Thought this was good and ‘goes some way’ to answering the submitters ‘concerns’. Said that the submitters ‘did a good job in pointing out those errors’ and that they are ‘pleased that we could provide a stronger submission’ as a result.

OKOTEL: glad that council is a ‘step closer’ to raising the contribution levy. Said that the 5.7% levy is one that was ‘supported by the Open Space Strategy’ and that this provided for a ‘strong reference base’ for this amount. The rate is ‘evidence based’ and she hoped it ‘would be accepted’. She then asked Newton a question about the officer’s report stating that 7 months would be added to the process if it went to a panel and that around $2 million would be lost from revenue and whether projects set down for implementation ‘would be impacted’?

NEWTON: said that when exhibited they estimated that the ‘revenue’ would rise from $2.2 million a year to $6.1 million. Continued that the Strategic Resource Plan is ‘based on current arrangements’ and the ‘extra revenue’ hasn’t been ‘taken into account’. Said that the current budget is resourced but what’s planned for the future in open space will only happen if the ‘amendment is put into effect’ and ‘the longer it takes the less money we will have’ for ‘next year and every other year’.

OKOTEL: then asked what council ‘mightn’t be able to complete’

NEWTON: gave two examples. One was the Booran Road Reservoir which is a ‘very expensive project’ and ‘because the meeting went so well’ council was thinking of ‘accelerating’ the works such as ‘demolishing the walls this current year’ and that’s ‘not budgeted’ but they could with the extra revenue and ‘complete the work earlier’ ‘if the money is available’. The second example was ‘another road intersection’ in North Caulfield and would be ‘similar’ to the Gisborne St/Riddell Parade closure. ‘At the moment there is no money in the ten year plan for that’ but if the amendment came in quickly ‘there would be more money’ so that ‘next year there would be more open space’.

MAGEE: said this could be a very ‘happy story’ that everyone wants. If developers pay the 5.7% then the money will ‘accumulate very quickly’ and council could implement the things listed in the Open Space Strategy. Referred to Newton’s examples and how important the Reservoir is given that council has been ‘talking about this for at least 5 years’. Said that it’s about ‘communities coming together and working together’. Stated that there could be times ‘when processes’ are different and other times when people can say ‘I don’t agree with you but I should work with you’. The amendment ‘benefits all of Glen Eira’ and council is ‘very passionate about’ this. The money isn’t from residents but ‘developers’ and the ‘cost to us is open space’ which council has to keep improving the open space. They can’t do this ‘by procrastinating’. Individuals might have ‘issues’ but the ‘overall good’ is for the community. ‘I’m saying don’t hold it back, don’t stop us’. Some people might say they ‘don’t like’ how council operates, but ‘suck it up’. ‘we need the money’ and it’s the ‘number one issue’ for Glen Eira that everyone should be ‘working towards’. ‘The process we can argue about’ but ‘let’s move on’.

DELAHUNTY: asked Sounness as a green, what the Greens would ‘say’ about the Open Space Strategy and the levy.

SOUNNESS: said that with open space then it’s about ‘improving, expanding’, ‘community access’, ‘equity and fairness’, letting people access a ‘safe, healthy, clean’ space,   so the greens and every party would support this.

DELAHUNTY: then asked that since there’s all this ‘passion’ and ‘feelings around the table’ whether there is ‘another path’ that could be taken so that the projects and money ‘could happen quicker’.

NEWTON: said that there’s ‘only one option’ if there are submissions and that’s to appoint a Panel. There would be a Panel in October and they’d report back to council which council would then consider and report back to Minister. ‘That’s a long time’ and council ‘would not be getting 5.7%’. He was like Delahunty ‘surprised and delighted’ that no one had objected to the 5.7%. Went on to say that if there hadn’t been submissions then council could have ‘adopted’ the amendment ‘tonight’ and written off to the minister tomorrow and it could have been in operation by August.

DELAHUNTY: since there are admissions, then the whole process has to be gone through – ie panel, report back to council, decision by council, sending off to minister and waiting for his approval.

NEWTON: so ‘if the submissions remain, the panel remains’ and all the other processes have to take place.

ESAKOFF: said it was ‘disappointing’ when this is on the agenda and the added costs that will happen. So there will be ‘delays’ or the inability to ‘accelerate’ projects. ‘It’s very disappointing’.

HYAMS: was ‘very p0leased’ that no submissions came from developers but thought that ‘once they cotton on’ to this that they may go directly to the minister and ‘try not to give us as much money’ as council is asking and others might be ‘rushing their applications through’. Said that consultants did ‘the strategic work that justifies the 5.7%’ so they are ‘pretty confident’ that even if developers object they would still get this rate. Perhaps even the developers looked at the ‘documentation’ of the amendment and ‘realised that we do have a solid case’ and they didn’t want to ‘waste their time’ on this knowing that ‘it was going to get through’. Sumbissions pointed out ‘2 errors in the documentation’ which might have ’caused confusion’ so ‘it’s good’ that this has been fixed. Thanked submitters and said that the submissions also ‘raised a number of policy’ questions. Hyams then ‘sought clarification’ from Akehurst by asking whether Public Acquisition Overlays are something that council ‘could or should do as part of this amendment’?

AKEHURST: said ‘no’ that it wasn’t ‘lawful’ and that ‘no council could do it’. Said that public acquisition overlays can only happen by ‘amending the planning scheme’ and to ‘identify the land to be applied’ and the ‘purpose for which it is being acquired’. The minister would have to approve exhibition and wouldn’t get the go ahead if council asked for more ‘land than required’. Council would also have to prove that ‘it has the financial resources to buy the land’ and this is ‘accepting financial responsibility’. If this is in the planning scheme then ‘council can be asked immediately to buy the land’. It can also cause anguish to the owners and that’s why councils only have ‘small numbers of overlays’. Councils generally start by getting the money from levies and then being in a position to buy the land, put in acquisition overlays.

HYAMS: stated that as one submitter said that it’s ‘unreasonable’ that all the money coming in would go to ‘catering for new residents’ and that the ‘140,000 people currently living in Glen Eira miss out’. Asked Akehurst whether it would be applied in this way.

AKEHURST: said council has go ‘not choice’ and that’s why it’s phrased as it is. Said that the amendment isn’t ‘justified if it’s not raising money for future residents’. Claimed that this ‘isn’t bad news for existing residents’ since the Open Space strategy has got projects where the money will be spent and apolicy that council will spend money ‘by other means’

HYAMS: asked Akehurst about the choice of ‘acquiring land or acquiring money’ and that the amendment only has 3 areas for cash contributions listed as preferable, so how is getting a ‘little’ piece of land at the back of a development ‘better than getting money’?

AKEHURST: said that ‘it’s not better’ and that council would be very stringent in what land it accepted and this would really only be if there was a ‘significant development’ and that this wouldn’t ‘happen very often’ because ‘Glen Eira is substantially developed already’.   Council would get cash mainly because development is generally on ‘small to medium sized lots’.

HYAMS: repeated how pleased he was that there weren’t any developer submissions and he thought that the two objectors would have thought that there would be others so they wouldn’t have expected that their submissions would be holding up council. Said that if the submissions ‘are withdrawn we can go straight to the minister’.

SOUNNESS: said this was ‘all about money’. Didn’t want to ‘see concrete’ but ‘useful’ parks, and gardens and the amendment want to ‘seek the mechanism for improving that capacity’. Said councillors ‘elswhere would love to get 5.7%’. Whitehorse is 4% and their plan was done by the same consultants and they’ve now bought 3 residential lots over time. Getting the cash means that council ‘can adjust to cicrumstances’. In western Australia there’s 5% and ‘compulsory acquisition overlays’. When this happens ‘people go nuts’ and say ‘my home is being removed’. Thanked submitters because ‘it’s a champion thing that democracy does’ but was worried that developers will now see that ‘there’s a cut off time’ and will take advantage of this by council getting a ‘rush of subdivisions’ and therefore receiving less money.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

July 1, 2014

Open Space Levies

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

As a result of objections, council has gone out of its way to fudge the facts and to assert what can only be described as unreasonable ‘pressure’ on two objectors to withdraw their concerns and thereby avoid a Panel hearing. The argument as presented in the officer’s report is simple: cave in, don’t object, or you will cost the community $2 million. Utter rubbish we say! Some basic facts:

  • The cited $6 million dollars as ‘revenue’ is NOT cash in hand. This includes the so called estimated land contribution value. Council’s Strategic Resource Plan provides figures of a paltry $2.2 million in cash for the next ten years. We also remind readers that when council was granted the status of ‘manager’ of the Booran Road Reservoir it entered the ‘value’ of this land ($24m) onto its books but it was made absolutely clear that this had NO IMPACT on its financial and operational base. See the minutes of 3rd November 2010.
  • Here’s another incorrect assertion – Public Acquisition Overlays are more likely to be disputed. It would be unfortunate if an Amendment was not supported by a Panel because of a proposed acquisition but the Amendment also included the higher contributions rates which were, as a result, not approved. A panel can disagree with one or two points and still make its recommendations to accept the amendment overall. Many panel decisions include some rejections or modifications of council proposals. It then comes back to council and they have the choice of accepting the panel’s full recommendations as they stand, abandoning the amendment, amending the amendment, etc. It is never an ‘either/or’ situation as these sentences pretend. Ultimately, this is nothing but scare-mongering.

There’s much, much more we could comment upon based on this agenda item. We will conclude with the view that every single resident has by law the option of objecting to amendments. Every resident also has a right to expect that when an amendment is advertised, it is devoid of errors, widely available, and easily accessible. None of these fundamental aspects of process have been carried out by council. The C120 Amendment (that is an actual draft of the amendment) has NEVER been included in council’s agenda papers, nor in its minutes – unlike some of the less contentious amendments! Even for tonight’s decision, the amendment itself is not available in the online agenda items. Residents would be hard put to find any announcements on council’s website for example or, if they happen to have missed the one and only advertisement in the local paper, then they also wouldn’t be any the wiser. Being hidden away behind the desks at libraries also does not fulfill our expectations of fully ‘engaging’ the public. So much for the Community Engagement Strategy with its empty promises and motherhood statements. Actions always speak louder than words and that remains the only worthwhile standard of evaluation.

Council has had years and years of doing nothing about its open space levies. Now suddenly, amendments are rushed through and, as so often happens, are full of errors that can only be ‘fixed’ up later. Instead of thorough planning that looks ahead and avoids countless further amendments to rectify anomalies or gaps, this council appears content to allow such poor practice. The residential zones and lot sizes are the most recent examples of inadequate planning. Other councils like Kingston for example, saw this ‘problem’ straight off and included lot sizes in their first draft of the schedules. Not Glen Eira! Not good enough we say. And to then blame residents for holding up ‘progress’ simply does not wash.

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »