GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

January 12, 2014

The Saga Continues…..

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

Neighbours allege ‘threats’ from Kornhauser family

Nicole and Eliezer Kornhauser (left) at home and (right) the Springfield Avenue building at the heart of the conflict.Nicole and Eliezer Kornhauser (left) at home and (right) the Springfield Avenue building at the heart of the conflict. Photo: Ken Irwin

A property dispute in a sleepy corner of St Kilda East has spilled from the courts into the streets following allegations that members of one of the nation’s wealthiest families threatened their neighbours.

Police have received complaints about a death threat and abusive behaviour involving Nicole and Eliezer (Eric) Kornhauser, a scion of the Kornhauser business and property empire worth an estimated $430 million.

The couple have been locked in a protracted battle against more than a dozen neighbours and Glen Eira City Council over the future of the Orthodox Jewish school that operates out of a specially designed building attached to their mansion in Springfield Avenue.

Council and court records show complaints about noise, parking and traffic problems in the residential area associated with the ”education centre”, which provides gender-segregated religious instruction to more than 30 boys and young women.

The Kornhausers’ bid to receive retroactive planning permission for the growing ”home school” facility was denied by the council and rejected on appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last year.

But the stoush has now come to police attention amid claims of intimidation and threats of violence in the lead-up to a Supreme Court challenge to the VCAT ruling.

Springfield Avenue resident Jannine Gross has filed a complaint with police following an alleged confrontation with Ms Kornhauser after trying to visit a common neighbour.

”As we were walking through Max’s front gate, I noticed out of the corner of my eye one of Nicole’s young children who is five or six years old walking towards us. He saw us and turned around and ran back towards his house,” the statement said.

”All of a sudden Nicole [Kornhauser] rushed in the gate before we had even left. She put her face about one millimetre away from mine and was screaming into my face, ‘If you touch my children, I will kill you. I will kill you. I will kill you. I will kill you.”’

The complaint also described an incident a month earlier when Mr Kornhauser allegedly pushed Ms Gross’ husband and threatened to ”destroy him”.

Police have declined to comment because of the Supreme Court civil proceeding. But Fairfax Media understands no charges have been laid relating to the complaint.

A spokeswoman for the Kornhausers said: ”The Kornhausers continue to be committed to do what they can to bring about peaceful relations with their neighbours – an outcome recently encouraged among all the neighbours in that area by their ward councillors, at the conclusion of a planning matter involving the parties.”

But some residents are gearing up for a new fight after the council recently withdrew from the Supreme Court case and reversed its opposition to the school.

The council has now voted unanimously in favour of the project after the Kornhausers agreed to cap the number of students at 25, reduce its operating hours and incorporate a neighbouring property they own to provide off-street parking.

”We felt the second application was far better – especially relating to the car parking – and it allayed the concerns we had around the original proposal,” Glen Eira mayor Neil Pilling said.

Fairfax Media understands the council’s new decision will be contested by Springfield Avenue residents in VCAT.

■ cvedelago@theage.com.au

Twitter: @chrisvedelago

 

January 7, 2014

Open Space Levies

Posted by gleneira under GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

One component of this strategy has been the review of the current open space contributions program. Areas for improvement that have been addressed in the review include simplifying the schedule of rates, broadening the contribution requirement to all development in the City of Glen Eira, providing direction on when a land contribution should be required, and re-calculating the rate based on the projects included in this strategy and linked to population change in the municipality during the strategy planning period. The strategy establishes the need for all subdivisions to contribute to open space and the type of contribution required, whether as land or equivalent value in cash.

A new schedule is proposed for Clause 52.01 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme An averaged rate to apply across the municipality would replace the schedule of multiple rates currently in the planning scheme. This would simplify the percentage rate calculation for open space contributions and link the funds collected to the open space projects contained in this strategy. Based on the projects recommended in this draft strategy, it is anticipated that this rate will be in the order of 4 to 5 per cent.

Thus sayeth the consultants in the draft Glen Eira Open Space Strategy. How they justify the recommended 4 to 5% flat rate is anybody’s guess given that:

  • No figures are provided on anticipated costs of acquiring new open space
  • No figures are provided on anticipated necessary expenditure  – for example on pavilion ‘improvements’
  • No figures are provided on what income is expected from a 4 to 5% increase and to what extent this meets the anticipated costs.

More important is the fact that this draft strategy TOTALLY IGNORES the possibility of levies higher than 5%. Stonnington for example is currently seeking an 8% levy across its municipality largely based on the fact that it has the second lowest amount of public open space in the state. If Glen Eira has the lowest, and is facing major residential development everywhere, then even a 5% levy is a joke!

We cite the following from the Stonnington review of its open space levy strategy and have uploaded the full document HERE. What is most impressive is the detail, the financial analysis, and the correlation between all of Stonnington’s policies – ie Public Realm, Pavilion Strategy, etc.

For starters, here’s what is not revealed in the Glen Eira version –

Clause 52.01 of the VPPs expressly recognises the power of councils to obtain open space contributions under the Subdivision Act, and provides a mechanism for councils to amend the provisions to suit local circumstances.

The Schedule enables a council to set its own contribution rate(s) subject to strategic justification. This can exceed the 5% limit of the Subdivision Act. The percent contribution can be tailored to meet the specific needs of areas and sub-areas, subdivision types (i.e. residential, commercial and industrial) and method of contribution (i.e. cash, land or both). Details of liability can be more clearly defined to suit local conditions. Councils are effectively immune from challenge to the contribution if a Schedule to Clause 52.01 is incorporated into the Planning Scheme and it is unambiguous and applied appropriately. Implementation of a Schedule to Clause 52.01 requires a Planning Scheme amendment. (page 4)

There is then an overview of the various levy approaches that could be taken by councils. For example:

The main advantage of this is its simplicity, clarity and certainty for subdivision proponents and council. A rate around 5% can deliver a significant income stream to council for open space.

The main weakness or disadvantage of this approach is that the nexus between who pays and who receives open space investment benefit – by area – can be weak. As such, it may be difficult to justify a rate higher than the Subdivision Act benchmark of 5% in using a flat rate even if some parts of a municipality would justify this due to high development pressure and open space need. (page 7)

Precinct Based Fixed Rate

The precinct based levy approach differs from the flat rate in that it seeks to provide a stronger nexus between developments that pay open space contributions and areas that receive benefit from planned open space investment. The upshot is that areas with more open space investment will pay a higher contribution, all other things being equal.

The approach links planned investments in an area to the contribution requirement. If an area is to receive no open space investment, the contribution in the area will be zero. The basis for the levy is therefore the planned investment as follows:

Strategic planning work is undertaken and this identifies infrastructure and open space projects that are required or desired for the planning area. This can be documented in a specific open space strategy or plan or a structure plan

The open space projects are identified and costed from this strategic base. The cost of each project is apportioned to subdivision over the life of the funding plan.

The strength of the precinct based approach is that it provides a stronger nexus between developments that pay open space contributions and areas that receive benefit from planned open space investment

The main weakness of the approach is that more justification may be required to support the Planning Scheme amendment process compared to a simple model. The validity of the approach may be based on the rigour of the supporting strategy and information inputs. (page 8)

The report then goes on to provide the necessary financial framework for the final recommendations-

Across the City as a whole, the current levy schedule has delivered about $3.3m per annum on average over the last four years and $6.2m in the latest full financial year.

If a 5% flat rate levy was used instead of the sliding scale over the last four years of levy operation, the income to Council would have been $15.0m over four years at an annual average of $3.8m (instead of the actual $13.2m at $3.3m).

The 5% flat rate would have delivered $6.8m in the 2011/12 financial year (instead of the actual $6.3m). This marginal change is explained by the fact that in that year most subdivisions applied a rate at or near 5%.

Various scenarios using 5% to 10% flat rate levies are shown in Figure 19 below. These levy rates are applied to:

The four years of levy collection from 2008/09 with an average per annum figure produced

The last financial year of levy collection 2011/12

The figures are extrapolated over 20 years to gauge what might be required to achieve approximately $314m in income to cover the cost of proposed open space works via this tool.

The four year data suggests that a flat rate of well over 10% would be needed if planned open space expenditure were to be fully funded from this levy over 20 years. Using the latest year data, projected revenues would be significantly greater, but even at a 10% levy rate, this mechanism would only collect 87% of projected expenditure.

In terms of the Chapel reVision area the levy would need to be set at 8% to fully recover the cost of acquisition and works planned for the area.

CONCLUSIONS?

  • Stonnington has decided that 5% is far from adequate. We suggest that the same holds true for Glen Eira.
  • Is Glen Eira Council capable, and/or willing, to do the necessary analysis that will provide the detail for any amendment that has a chance of getting up? Or is it easier to take the simple path and just pluck a figure from the air without really knowing how far this will advance the acquisition of more open space in the municipality?
  • Is 4 to 5% seen as the secret threshold that will not put off too many developers – even though these extra costs will undoubtedly be passed on to eventual purchasers.
  • And the perennial question is: why can one council do all this work, be upfront with their strategic planning, and our glorious council persists in waffle, lack of detail and financial justifications, and misinformation!?
 

December 30, 2013

Plan Melbourne: Top Secret In Glen Eira!

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

The latest example of Glen Eira secrecy and decision making behind closed doors comes with the December 6th closing date for submissions on the State Government’s Plan Melbourne – arguably the most important document since Melbourne 2030.

Other councils:

  • Have published their submissions and had the drafts ratified at council meetings. Glen Eira has done neither of these things
  • Have involved the community in drafting their submissions. Glen Eira has been totally secretive.
  • Glen Eira has not made a ‘submission’ but written a ‘letter’.
  • Glen Eira stated on December 17th that the ‘letter’ would be put on on its website. It is yet to appear.

We certainly do not expect this ‘letter’ to be anything other that a page or two of waffle, self congratulations, and total endorsement of Plan Melbourne. Other councils, in contrast, have taken the time and effort to analyse and (often) criticise what they perceive to be the major failings of this document. Below are some extracts taken from these submissions. We wait with bated breath for the Glen Eira version to appear so that residents can clearly see how Glen Eira is failing its ratepayers.

Port Phillip  (41 page submission): Source – http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_7_-_Plan_attach_1.pdf

Council highlights its concern that the detailed initiatives and actions proposed in Plan Melbourne do not always align well with ‘issues’ identified in the Plan, nor adequately support implementation of the Plan’s strategic objectives and directions. Proposed initiatives are often lacking in detail and clarity of intent. There are also notable ‘gaps’ in potential actions which offer greatest opportunity to effectively deliver on the objectives of the Plan.

Plan Melbourne does not address how government will respond to the impacts of climate change – specifically climate adaptation to heat waves and flooding/sea level rise. This is considered a major gap in a long term strategy for the development of Melbourne.

Plan Melbourne proposes several initiatives to ‘streamline’ the planning system, including applying VicSmart to medium density housing and affordable housing projects. Proposals which limit community involvement in the planning process, or reduce Local Government’s decision-making responsibilities are not supported.

The new commercial zones reflects a ‘one size fits all’ approach and are contrary to the emphasis in Plan Melbourne on protecting the ‘distinctiveness’ of local areas and to the recognition given to Local Government’s role in planning for Activity Centres.

BOROONDARA – (59 page submission) Source: http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Your%20Council/Building%20and%20planning/Strategic%20planning/Metro%20planning%20strategy%20discussion%20paper%20submission.pdf

Council wishes to express its disappointment at the short time frame given to local governments, the community and stakeholders for reviewing the Strategy and providing submissions. The initiatives and actions in the Strategy will have many local impacts and therefore consultation with communities is very important.

The Strategy does not state whether Local government will have an opportunity to comment on the revised SPPF. Considering that councils use the SPPF in their decision making, it is considered important that they are consulted before the SPPF is finalised.

Clarification is required as to how new locations for Activity Centres will be determined, and what measures will be used to determine the need for new centres. It is unclear if there are State-driven targets for retail or commercial floorspace that the State Government will be seeking to meet. The implications of rezoning land for commercial purposes would need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

The publishing of annual housing development data to inform the development and monitoring of municipal housing strategies is supported, however the ability to gain such information on an annual basis is questioned. It is also unclear what the next step will be once this data is obtained, for example, are there going to be annual reviews and changes to the application of the new zones in response to the data received? Given that the new residential controls have been introduced prior to undertaking the strategic work of projecting housing needs, it is unclear how those projections will be accommodated in the controls.

Updating the design guidelines and introducing measurable standards for high density residential and mixed use development is supported, as is a review of the design, layout, internal living amenity and balcony needs of apartment development. Clarification as to how this will be implemented is required, beyond a consideration of current planning and building controls identified in the Strategy.

STONNINGTON (18 page submission)

Council notes the strategic importance of this Strategy in planning for the City over the next 40 years, and is disappointed that further time wasn’t allowed for Councils and the community to fully consider and respond to this consultation particularly in light of the timing around locally applying the residential planning zone reforms.  In addition, Council notes that the State Government expects to release the final Plan Melbourne in January 2014, and is concerned that adequate time and consideration will not be given to the comprehensive comments provided by the City of Stonnington and other submitters

We are aware that the comment period for the Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy closes on 6 December 2013.  To this end, Council has held two Drop-in Information Sessions for the community, launched a dedicated consultation web page on Council’s website, placed information regarding the Strategy in the Stonnington Leader, distributed an email alert and undertaken hard copy and electronic surveys to gauge local opinion on the proposed Strategy.  These views have helped inform this submission

Plan Melbourne to delete the reference to within 400 metres of an Activity Centre and instead refer to identification of suitable areas in locally specific structure plans and planning controls.

The Caulfield Urban Renewal Area should not extend north of the major barrier of Dandenong Road / rail line.

Strategies requiring State Government lead, include Design Guidelines for higher and medium density development including internal amenity, ESD (Environmental Sustainable Design), WSUD (Water Sensitive Urban Design), licensed venues and liquor licensing policy, and developer contributions schemes.

The Metropolitan Planning Strategy lacks clarity with regard to ‘Activity Centres’ and ‘Neighbourhood Centres’. In some instances these terms are mutually exclusive and in others, Neighbourhood Centres are considered as a subset of Activity Centres.

There are numerous areas around the Stonnington rail lines that are important in terms of heritage and neighbourhood character. Areas suitable for additional residential and mixed-use development, including provision for new open space, should be identified through locally specific structure plans and planning controls

A key concern for Stonnington residents is inappropriate higher density development and the impact on neighbourhood character and internal and external amenity. Robust principles and performance-based guidelines are needed to inform good design outcomes that are responsive and respectful of the local context.

Another key concern is the increasing provision of one person homes to poor standards which can be seen to create ‘slum-like’ areas.  Stonnington therefore advocates that greater emphasis needs to be placed in the Strategy on minimum design standards for residential apartments.

Council believes it is not appropriate for Plan Melbourne to specify that land within 400 metres of an Activity Centre are key areas to accommodate higher density housing. Concerns raised are mainly because of the confusion as to which takes statutory and regulatory precedence; Plan Melbourne (which identifies areas within 400 metres of an Activity Centre to be intensified) or the Local Planning Policy Framework, which could potentially have protected areas within this 400 metre radius.

At present there is no evidence-based link between public transport capacity to accommodate increased demand and development approvals. Council believes there needs to be greater emphasis on projected public transport capacity in the application of the new residential zones, whereby lack of public transport capacity is sufficient reason to reduce the intensity of development. For example in saturated road conditions, developments should not be approved on tram or rail corridors until it can be established the that demand created by the development growth can be accommodated.

Levels of parking provision in development proposals must also take into account transport impacts, and not solely market demand. This is of particular importance when the responsible authority considers there are alternative options to the private car available, where several public transport modes are within walking distance such as the Forrest Hill urban renewal area.

Council has noted that there does not appear to be any specific Directions or Initiatives in relation to ESD or WSUD.  Stonnington Council wishes to reaffirm the importance of metropolitan-wide strategies requiring State Government lead in both these areas, and the importance of water sensitive urban design in better managing stormwater run-off. 

Finally, we’ve uploaded the Save our Suburbs analysis which clearly outlines why Plan Melbourne has the potential to be a boon to developers and a blight on neighbourhoods. We urge all readers to please read, consider and then compare with what kind of effort eventually surfaces from Glen Eira administration and its bunch of ‘yes sir’ councillors!

 

December 27, 2013

A Do Nothing Council – Again!

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

The 2010 Planning Scheme Review promised the following actions on heritage :

  • Heritage review of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land
  • Include draft heritage guidelines as reference documents in scheme
  • Prepare a Heritage Strategy for Glen Eira in line with Heritage Victoria requirements

None of these ‘promises’ have eventuated three years down the track. Glen Eira still languishes under ‘reviews’ and ‘strategies’ that date back to 1996. Given that there are many ‘heritage’ properties currently in Housing Diversity areas, we fear for the future given the inability of this council to actually get its planning scheme in order so that it does protect what it’s supposed to.

Below are some extracts from a recent VCAT decision which illustrate why residents have cause to ask what this council has actually done in the last 15 years except pave the way for developers?

  • Importantly, the Ormond and Bentleigh Draft Heritage Guidelines July 2002 document does not form part of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and has therefore not been subject to the transparent scrutiny and comprehensive assessment that is an essential part of modifying the planning scheme through the formal planning scheme amendment process. This document has been in existence for over ten years and Council has never sought to include it in the planning scheme by undertaking this process.
  • The document which has been subject to the scrutiny and rigour of the planning scheme amendment process is the Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan prepared by Andrew Ward & Associates in 1996. This document is formally identified as a reference document in Clause 21.10 of the planning scheme. It is this document which I am bound to consider as part of my deliberations. Because the Andrew Ward Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan is the relevant reference document, I have not given any weight to the Ormond and Bentleigh Draft Heritage Guidelines July 2002 document in my assessment and findings.

I find that the demolition of the subject building is acceptable as it will not have a detrimental impact on the significance of the heritage place (that is, on the significance of the area identified by the Heritage Overlay No. 75) as:

  • It is not identified as a ‘contributory building’ in the Andrew Ward Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan;
  • It has been identified as a ‘building defaced’ in the Andrew Ward Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan;
  • Mr Bick’s evidence confirms that this assessment is correct, and this has been confirmed by my site visit; and
  • I have not given any weight to the Ormond and Bentleigh Draft Heritage Guidelines July 2002 document for the reasons already provided.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/2136.html

 

 

December 24, 2013

2013: The Year In Review

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

In terms of transparency, accountability, and genuine community engagement, it is our view that this council has slipped even further into the mire. Nothing that we can see would indicate any change in the culture, objectives, and policies of the ruling clique. If anything, the situation has worsened with the continued defection of Pilling, and the gang’s ‘recruitment’ of Sounness and Okotel and at times, Delahunty.

2013 will stand as testimony to the failure of this council and its councillors to achieve anything approaching the principles of good governance and working for the community. We base our judgement on the following list of catastrophes –

  • The continued reappointment of Newton without advertising the position PLUS a 30 to 40 thousand dollar pay hike!
  • The introduction of the new Residential Zones in secrecy and as per norm, without any public consultation
  • The continued presence of Lipshutz, McLean and Gibbs on the most vital advisory committee – the Audit committee.
  • The riding roughshot over residents’ views – GESAC car park extensions; devious destruction of Caulfield Park trees; Koornang Rd and Centenary park proposed tree destruction.
  • The above demonstrate the failure to plan in a prudent and cost effective fashion. When literally millions are spent as an ‘afterthought’ on bitumen and concrete plinths, what does this say about prudence, business planning, and overall financial management?
  • The failure to introduce a Notice of Motion and other democratic reforms
  • The continual reappointments of Lipshutz, McLean and Gibbs to the Audit Committee
  • The formation of a ‘consultation committee’ that hasn’t played any role in any ‘consultations’ for the past 18 months and the failure to appoint the original submitters since they presumably did not meet the ‘pliable/ignorant’ requirements of the ruling clique
  • The failure to ensure that those who fork out the money (ie residents) are given priority in any sporting allocation especially the McKinnon Basketball Club at GESAC, and Ajax Seniors
  • The continual doctoring of minutes, and failure to produce answers, rather than ‘responses’ to public question
  • The continued approval of substandard dwellings of 8, 10, 12 storeys
  • The continued waiving of car parking requirements without justification
  • The failure to introduce proper reporting standards in planning
  • The failure to pursue developers for breaches of permits or the law
  • The continued cow-towing to the mrc
  • The continued ‘top down’ approach to consultation
  • The failure to include community representation on most committees

There is much, much more that could be mentioned. Much needs to happen in order for this council to be dragged screaming into the realm of good, open government. We remain committed to working towards this objective and continuing to highlight the shortcomings and duplicity of these councillors and their overlords.

 

December 21, 2013

Your Future In Their Incapable Hands?

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

A new low has been reached with the following ‘debate’ on the Kornhauser application.

Delahunty moved the motion to accept with changes – conditions requiring unloading area and that this shouldn’t be ‘used for any other purpose’. Sounness seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said that this was ‘incredibly difficult process’ for residents and didn’t give her any ‘pleasure to stand here and deliver a verdict tonight’. Said it was a ‘beautiful’ street and ‘suffers from being very beautiful and popular’ and she uses it when she visits Masada hospital. Said that councillors had asked officers to ‘review’ the parking in the area and that the notice of decision does have ‘regard’ for the ‘very relevant objectors’ opinion’. Realised that the objectors would be wondering how councillor can ‘allow’ this to ‘come about’ and she thought that the non-residential uses in residential zones policy has some ‘deliberate ambiguity to it’ so that decisions can be made on some non residential uses. Went on to say that in order to ‘minimise’ the impact on neighbours ‘council has done several things’ such as limiting hours and numbers of students and to limit ‘traffic movement’ and to provide car parking ‘which is an absolute necessity’. Said that what council can’t do in a permit, but she hopes will happen in that ‘everyone will go away’ here tonight ‘in good faith’ and that people come together and work together. Hoped that the permit will not ‘interrupt neighbourhood amenity’. Stated that there were some things raised by objectors that ‘may seem relevant but can’t actually be considered’ such as noise and the type of education being provided. These couldn’t be ‘discussed’. Thought that the conditions were trying to ‘strike a balance’ and hoped that everyone would be kind to one another and that the applicant adheres to the conditions.

SOUNNESS: acknowledged that there’s a history to this application and that there are ‘grounds’ under planning to consider it again. He found it ‘striking’ that such a small school could ‘generate’ that amount of ‘correspondence’ and that it’s ‘got support by the community’ and also ‘concerns’ from the community.  Went on to claim that the conditions seek to ‘confirm’ numbers of staff, students, etc. ‘These things give surety’. Said that the planning scheme isn’t definitive and ‘there is ambiguity’. He thought that a school is one thing and a home education is another and that this application ‘sits’ somewhere in between. Ultimately he couldn’t see anything to say ‘that this should not proceed’. Thought that the conditions ‘encourage good behaviour within the community’ but council isn’t a ‘policeman’ that’s going to stand ‘at the corner counting’ so he ‘hopes’ that parties recognise the conditions and act accordingly. Council needs to do the ‘best’ they can ‘by the tools they have’. He was confident that the conditions set down would provide the best ‘outcome’.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that he chaired the planning conference and said that he was ‘disappointed’ that no objectors showed up because he wanted to hear what they had to say. Stated that he did hear from objectors ‘this morning’ but that this was ‘too little too late’ in ‘terms of trying to convince councillors’. If they had shown up then they would have heard that officers look at parking and amenity and noise and that ‘those are the issues’. Many objections were raised but ‘outside those principles’ and which ‘can’t be looked at’ since council is only able to look at ‘planning law’ since they had a ‘quasi-judicial’ function and have ‘to enforce planning law’. Said that in the past he had said that he doesn’t want ‘a school in my street. I don’t want Mr Scopus in my street’ but ‘this is 25 students’and for him this wasn’t ‘particularly onerous’. Talk about parties intimidating each other was ‘unfortunate’ but all council can do is ‘look at planning principles’.  Claimed that council basically ‘tried to limit the nature of this institution’.  If there is student ‘creep’ well all that means is that the ‘applicant will have to come back to council to make an application’ and he thinks that it won’t be looked upon ‘favourably’. In answering the question of ‘how do we know’ how many students front up Lipshutz said ‘well council can have spot checks’ and ‘they will be brought to task’ if the permit isn’t adhered to. There’s been ‘distrust’ and now it’s ‘important’ that everyone ‘goes away’ and allow the ‘applicants to proceed and do what they have to do’ and ‘be good neighbours’. ‘If they’re not, they will pay the consequences’.

LOBO: went through the history of the application – ie council refusal, vcat. Said that the school ‘has been operating for some time now’ but the owners are now ‘trying to put their records in order’.  Claimed that officers had addressed all issues like parking and the covenant. Said that Victoria accepts ‘home schooling’ and that council’s policy ‘cements’ this approach. Went on to say that ‘I have always said that schools should be separate from residents’ so kids can ‘shout and play’. Said the motives in running the school by the applicant is ‘commendable’ and that they are an ‘epitome of the community’ because ‘they enjoy good integrity and character’.   Since he’s got a few ‘Jewish family friends’ he ‘understands’ the organisation who are ‘selfless’ and ‘reach out to everyone without discrimination’. He’s also been told that ‘preconceived evil is not in their nature’. Said that this needs to looked at in terms of the new application and the ‘Kornhauser’s philanthropic’ contribution to society. “I do not think that their rabbis hate me anymore’.

DELAHUNTY: said that objectors not attending the planning conference is ‘disappointing but understandable under the circumstances’ and this doesn’t mean that their written objections weren’t ‘taken into consideration’. She didn’t think that ‘Cr Lipshutz was suggesting that’.  Said that one objector had asked her whether she would like to live there her response was that  if she didn’t ‘know the history, I would be absolutely thrilled’ but if she had ‘been through’ what residents have been through ‘I might think differently’. But ‘as it stands now’ being close to parks and transport, ‘Yes I would live there’. She ‘hoped that this street is a happy place to live’.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PS: A reader kindly posted the URL for the Dilbert cartoon below. We thought that it so precisely sums up the Glen Eira Council culture and philosophy that it requires highlighting.

dilbert

 

December 19, 2013

Method Acting & Pure Bull!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments 

There were 2 Rights of Reply Tuesday night from Pilling and Magee. Both were supposedly in response to the Southwick remarks in parliament regarding the removal of the Caulfield Park trees.  We highlight these as the supreme example of political grandstanding (especially by Magee) and the puppet performance by Pilling reading out his scripted lines. Laugh out loud, dear readers!

PILLING: claimed that Southwick was ‘not correct’ and that his statements were ‘inaccurate and misleading’.  Pilling denied that the cutting down of trees was on ‘party lines’ but that at ‘every’ stage there was ‘unanimous support’ by councillors. The ‘true number of trees removed is 21′ and many of these trees were in the range of ’15 to 20 years old’. Southwick only contacted council via a letter dated 9th December and on the 12th Pilling answered. He then quoted from that response letter. He read that the alternate proposal won’t ‘address or solve’ the ‘purpose of these works’ and that there was misunderstanding about the ‘need for buffer zones’. The proposed ‘works’ are the same that happened to ovals 5, 6, and 7 in 2008 and over 300 new trees planted. The master plan was ‘adopted after extensive community consultation’ and council has ‘reviewed’ it to ascertain whether the proposed action is ‘still relevant’. Said this was ‘the case in this instance’ and ‘even more so because of increasing pressures’ of high density development. The works are about ‘reducing risk and ensuring safety’. Went on to state that the works were advertised over a month ago and that ‘all councillors’ have had ‘continued dialogue’ with residents and as a result ‘endeavoured’ to ‘reduce the number of trees removed’. The ‘benefit’ of the ‘reconfiguration’ is that ‘over 100 children’ can now ‘participate in organised sport’. All of this is highlighted on council’s website. Concluded that the ‘long term benefits to the community’ outweigh the ‘short term loss’.

MAGEE: said that he ‘appreciated’ Pilling’s right of reply for council but that he wanted to do his own right of reply. Started by saying that Southwick ‘made a couple of fatal errors’ in his speech. Magee then spoke about pre-election and how Southwick had promised to ‘open up the racecourse’. ‘Well now the centre of the racecourse is full of fences’ and a ‘failed miserable playground which is only used during racedays’. Quoted Southwick as claiming this is a Greens/Labor council. Magee then said that the works are part of the ‘warm season grasses’ program and that Lipshutz moved that motion and ‘the last time I looked Cr Lipshutz was not a Labor person’ and he doesn’t remember Lipshutz ‘sitting next to me in an ALP meeting singing ‘Solidarity forever’. Thought that it was ‘disappointing’ that Southwick ‘does say these things’. He could have rung council but instead said something in parliament and Magee will now say something back and Southwick will probably do the same and it is all ‘very childish’. ‘What’s important here is that we are all working for the benefit of our community’ and getting more open space. ‘If Mr Southwick had kept his promise and opened the centre of the racecourse’ then council wouldn’t need to ‘pull down’ the trees because there would be enough sporting grounds. Claimed that the ‘last thing’ council wants to do is remove the ‘loving’ trees. If Southwick ‘wants to condemn us for it, then I condemn him’ and ‘this is his fault’, ‘his inaction, his broken promise’. Southwick didn’t ‘open the centre of the racecourse’ and left council ‘with no alternative’. Said that ‘it’s atrocious that we have to do something like this to a beautiful park like Caulfield park – but we have to’ and ‘it’s Mr Southwick’s fault, not council’s’.

 

December 17, 2013

Council Meeting Marathon!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

Detailed reports on tonight’s council meeting will follow in the days ahead. However, readers should note the following outcomes:

  • The Kornhauser application accepted unanimously and not one single word stated about student accommodation/shared housing. Lobo even declared at one point that ‘rabbis would love’ him now!
  • The so called greens see nothing wrong with the Gordon St 8 storey 55 unit development because it’s close to transport and will ‘enliven’ the area. Lobo/Magee motion to refuse got up by 5 votes to 4. Voting against refusal – Lipshutz; Delahunty, Sounness and Pilling
  • The most important items (ie. proposed amendments for large lot sizes and the revisiting the C87) took about 10 minutes in total! Passed unanimously. Our view is another ‘victory’ for developers and deceiving the public.
  • A sporting allocation policy that changes nothing and still cedes all control to unelected officers
  • Audit committee report nothing more than self-congratulations and how wonderful Gibbs and McLean are.
  • CCTV funding from government refused. Voting to accept – Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel.
  • Many public questions demanded that councillors provide INDIVIDUAL answers to specific queries – in other words, tell residents of their views and why they voted or felt the way they did. No councillor had the guts to address the questions and state what their actual views were. Instead it was all about ‘councils’ views.
 

December 15, 2013

Double Standards?

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

This council has had no qualms in spending tens of thousands of dollars in pursuing Frank Penhalluriack over an alleged boarding house violation that in effect was only in existence for several weeks. It would appear that the same diligence, persistence and consistency of law and principle does not apply to all residents and properties. We are referring to the new application for 8 -10 Springfield Avenue, North Caulfield. What councillors are now being asked to do is grant a ‘retrospective permit’ for an ‘education centre’ and we believe a ‘shared accommodation’ site.

The question of  double standards centres on the following:

  • If there is a component of this ‘education centre’ that provides a 10 month course and offers ‘accommodation’ for these students (some of whom are from overseas) does this constitute a ‘boarding house’?
  • Why has council turned a blind eye to this and not pursued the owner in a manner that is commensurate with the approach taken to Penhalluriack? We refer readers to the boarding house registry where they will find that NO PERMIT exists for this property (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing-and-accommodation/renting/types-of-rental-agreements/public-register-of-rooming-houses?rs=Glen+Eira+City&sz=20&pg=1&ct=4
  • Why does the Ron Torres report not mention the fact that the 10 month course also offers ‘accommodation’. All that we are told is: The intensity of the current version of the proposal has been reduced compared with the previous version that was refused. For example, the 2 week intensive MerkosWomen course will not be offered and a maximum of 10 women will be enrolled in the 10 month course rather than 15. Whilst the maximum number of boys is not proposed to be reduced, the hours of operation will no longer include any Sunday classes. Similarly, there will be no evening classes for the MerkosWomen that were part of the original application.
  • Yet, the current website of Merkos Women, makes it absolutely clear that the site provides for live-in accommodation, and according to the VCAT member the 10 month course charges US $12,000!

Participants are provided with beautiful accommodation in the heart of Melbourne’s Jewish community. The accommodation includes comfortable shared bedrooms, modern formal and informal lounging areas and a large kitchen in which the girls are guided in preparing communal based meals and are given the opportunity to explore the cultural aspect of food preparation. For the hotter summer months, there is a swimming pool and outdoor area.

Source: http://merkoswomen.com.au/general-info-for-overseas-participants

This ‘new application’ is ‘retrospective’. In other words the site has been operating for years without the appropriate permits. And what has council done? Very little it would seem! The earlier VCAT decision even included this admission by Council’s representative (Mr Leary) – Council’s Enforcement Officer having apparently had problems in the past with being granted access on to the subject land. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1157.html)

As to the merits of the ‘new’ application we only reiterate that for years neighbours have complained to council about the operation of this site as a school and they have basically been ignored. Now council proposes to grant a permit despite traffic concerns, and entirely overlooks the question of whether or not the site is in part operating as ‘shared accommodation’. Thus our question of double standards and why the law is not applied equally to all?

Finally, we draw readers’ attention to the following Age/SMH article and especially to the alleged council position as stated in the penultimate sentence – The council has agreed not to fight the move in exchange for a promise from the Kornhausers that they would not seek to force the council to pay any legal costs if the family wins the case.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/family-seeks-to-run-school-20130917-2tx2r.html#ixzz2nUskMgpk

 

December 13, 2013

Agenda: Stuff Ups & Spin

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

Apologies for what is an exceedingly long post but which focuses on 2 vitally important Amendment proposals that basically admit council’s previous stuff ups, plus the public relations exercise on the C60 and Caulfield Village. Please refer to the actual agenda items on council’s website for other items including – walking strategy, sporting ground allocations policy, and some very interesting in camera items concerning the Audit Committee.

Caulfield Village Development

Rocky Camera’s report is in response to the following Request for a Report passed at last council meeting – “That a report be prepared to determine the best methods to engage with the community surrounding the Caulfield  Racecourse in light of impending developments which will impact their amenity. That the report recommend ways to involve the community in helping to shape the future of their area be that through structure planning or another method used by other councils.”

We note at the outset that the request for ‘methods’ is not really addressed by Mr Camera’s response and ‘structure’ planning is mentioned only twice in passing, in the entire 6 pages of script! Instead, the report is a follow up to the Akehurst comments from this council meeting and the admission that residents’ opportunities to ‘object’ to the Caulfield Village are dead and buried!

Once again there is plenty of misleading information. Even though Probuild has formally announced its intention to build 1500+ units, this report still maintains – “Caulfield Village will contain 1200 dwellings’ and ‘improvements to three main road intersections’. The report then continues with assurances that “details” are known and this followed (of course) ‘extensive community consultation’. Probuild could not have employed a better public relations firm that Glen Eira City Council in spruiking the development as evidenced by the following highly dubious claims.

This document gives certainty to the local community by precisely stipulating building envelopes; their heights, setbacks, and siting. It can be said that the Caulfield Village development is one of the most planned development sites in the municipality. The future development of this land has been “locked in” following a rigorous community consultation and amendment process, the community now has a high level of certainty in what to expect at Caulfield Village. This certainty even extends to the location of new roads, infrastructure upgrades, and the use of laneways. If any person is unaware or unsure of the future development of the Caulfield Village, they simply just need to turn to the Incorporated Plan. In this respect, the community’s involvement in “helping shape the future of the area” has occurred.

The degree of detail and certainty far exceeds what a structure plan could offer. At best, structure plans are policy documents, providing general guidance on future development. The framework for Caulfield Village, with precise controls, and a rigorous ‘recipe’, means there is already absolute certainty about what the extent of future development will be.

Thus, after a page and a half of unfounded assurances, the real truth emerges. All residents will be able to do regarding the Development Plan is submit ‘comments’. They will not have any objection rights to VCAT. The best residents can hope for is that someone with common sense realises that 1500+ units as opposed to 1200+ units, does in fact constitute a marked departure from the Incorporated Plan. The domino effect should then be applied to traffic, etc. But all we’re told is:

if the developer deviates from the Incorporated Plan (‘recipe’) and proposes, say, taller buildings than what is specified in the building envelope. In this case, a full town planning process, together with typical third-party rights must be undertaken. That is, if a proposal contains taller buildings than the agreed envelopes, or departs from the Incorporated Plan, the community needs to be further consulted.

What will be interesting is how ‘deviates’ is defined and by whom and what constitutes a ‘deviation’ from the sorely lacking detail of the Incorporated Plan!

There are several other admissions most notably that the open space levy extracted from the developers only amounts to $4m for the residential components. Given that the law at the time permitted up to 5% Council has again let the big boys off very cheap at 4%! Mention is made of the possibility of ‘back dating’ rates, but we assume that this will be calculated on the miniscule rates that have been part of the Planning Scheme since 2006/7 and not the uppermost limit currently available. Another present to developers!

We urge residents to read this report very, very carefully and to note the following:

  • The first development plan is already in the hands of council and will be made public early 2014
  • After so many assurances that ‘precise details’ are known about the future of this area, the recommendations confess that the C60 in effect only supplies ‘broad parameters’!

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER AND HERITAGE CONTROLS

If ever there was an admission of a total stuff up then Item 9.9 is the living proof. This harks back to Amendment c87 where the Neighborhood Character Overlays were introduced into the planning scheme. Readers will remember that councillors in their wisdom promised those residents who asked that their areas be included, or not excluded, that they could present their case to the Planning Panel, only to find that the ‘terms of reference’ could not be altered. Hence, all those individuals who believed council found out to their horror that their claims were not relevant to the deliberations of the Planning Panel. We also remind readers that both residents and councillors were not given the opportunity to put in any recommendations – it was all done ‘inhouse’ by officers and through the Planisphere report.

Well now (a year later) there is a massive public relations exercise about to happen, where a handful of residents from that time will get a look in. The proposals are minimalist in the extreme – a couple of more houses added to the heritage listing and basically one more street included. Of course, none of this will happen in the short term, given the length of time it takes for Amendments to get through. We simply ask why this couldn’t have happened right from the start? Why does it take this council attempt after attempt to get something close to ‘correct’?

LARGE SITES – NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE

This is nothing but a confession that the zone reforms are another major stuff up and this is purely a limited attempt at ‘damage control’ given the outcry from developers. It does not excuse, nor solve the problem as we see it because:

  • The proposed amendment only addresses lots that are larger than 2000 sq. m. What if block of land is 1000sq.m for example?
  • With no minimum size prescribed in the planning scheme we can have subdivisions upon subdivisions so the myth of two dwellings per lot may stand – but the overall effect would mean 2 dwellings on each subdivision. There is nothing in the planning scheme to prevent this and we believe it is already happening.

There is much, more more of significance in these agenda papers. As per the norm, major issues are all presented at the one time so that real discussion, debate, and the prospect of intelligent and careful decision making is jeopardised. We even wonder whether councillors have taken the time to actually read all 377 pages!

PS: We’ve neglected to mention the Elsternwick Plaza item. At last council meeting the following resolution was passed – “That Council not accept VicTrack’s revised offer and continue to advocate for finalisation of the lease as per the original plan.”. This was after the Lipshutz/Hyams motion was defeated. However, being persistent little councillors, we now find that Newton has undertaken further negotiations and that there has been some ‘movement at the station’. This new recommendations DOES NOT ADHERE TO THE EXISTING RESOLUTION. We presume that the motto of the gang is that if you don’t succeed first time around, try, try, try again! It will be fascinating to see if councillors have got the gumption to stick to their original motion or whether they will cave in as per usual. This item just happens to be 9.20 – last cab off the rank when ‘determination’ and ‘stamina’ have been well and truly exhausted by everyone! Ah, the games that we play!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »