GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

June 30, 2012

Snails Move Faster!

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

In August 2010, we had the mock Planning Scheme Review – allegedly based on “extensive consultation” . Funny how resident views via submissions were not published, but such views barely made it into the final “Action Plan”. We thought it would be interesting to go back and review the review. Specifically, we were looking at:

What was promised but has not been done in two years time – ie many of the following indicated a completion date of 2010/11. We are now just on two years down the track and there’s no movement at the station. What has been “completed” of course, are all those amendments which would allow more and more residential development!
The other completed amendments involve REMOVAL of such important sections as the Development Contributions Levy, Commercial Centres Policy, and this coming week the revamping of the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.
We simply have to ask: are these really the most urgent, the most important components of the Planning Scheme? Or are they merely those components which will allow more and more open slather for developers and that’s why they receive priority treatment?

Below we list all the so called Action Items which are still to get a look in. They make for some impressive reading we think!

Review Housing and Residential Development Strategy
Review Housing Diversity area policy to assess need to encourage three bedroom dwellings
Prepare a new streamlined MSS for Council consideration and commence the amendment process
Investigate need for new local policies (eg advertising signs, car parking)
Consider parking precinct plans for Activity Centres
Do not implement structure plans. Instead, complete an Activity Centres Review to update existing policy frameworks to provide greater direction within Activity Centres (short of Structure Plan detail).
Review the Housing Diversity Area policy to provide prescriptive guidance.
Pursue approval from State Government to increase the private open space requirement from 60m2 to 80m2 and consider tree protections outlined in the Environmental Sustainability Strategy
Prepare a Heritage Strategy for Glen Eira in line with Heritage Victoria requirements

June 29, 2012

Chip, Chip, Chipping Away?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[8] Comments

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature another 2 Planning Scheme Amendments. We will concentrate on the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.

Generally when council introduces an amendment the argument is that it is necessary to fix up zoning issues, or that many of the clauses/phrases/wording in the existing planning scheme is repetitious, not clearly expressed, the legislation has changed, etc. etc. Our analysis of the proposed Non-Residential Uses reveals an entirely different picture. Yes, some changes are due to legislation but many represent nothing more than a watering down of previous conditions and thereby providing far more opportunity for developers to set up in residential areas. We have no problem with the position that amenities such as doctor surgeries, vets, etc. should be located where people live. What we do object to is the chipping away at conditions that help safeguard the existing amenity of residents.

Below we feature a table which presents side by side the current clauses and phrases from the existing Planning Scheme and what is proposed. Many of the changes are indeed subtle – just a word here and there – but the ramifications of these changes are immense. Please note that we have not covered everything – just the main concerns such as location, car parking, and protection of trees.

EXISTING POLICY

PROPOSED CHANGES

To encourage the development and location of new non-residential uses in areas which are compatible with the residential nature of the area and comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

Proposed development sites abut a main or secondary road and have vehicular access from a service road or side. Other locations may only be considered where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be compromised.

The proposal be located within easy walking distance of public transport.

Existing dwelling stock be retained in preference to purpose built facilities.

Sufficient car parking be provided on-site for all users.

he standard car parking requirement will only be reduced where the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the area is supported with suitable levels of public car parking and public transport.

The retention of any significant trees or landscape features be a high priority in the design.

Where car parking is in the front setback, a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage be provided.

Where car parking areas abut residential dwellings, an adequate landscape buffer (suggested width of 1.5m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

Stormwater runoff directed into garden areas to reduce watering and demand on drainage infrastructure.

To encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses, in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

Encourage the location of non-residential uses in “preferred locations” including main or secondary roads and on corner sites with vehicular access from a service or side road. Consider other locations where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be unreasonably compromised.

DISAPPEARED and replaced with: Discourage the location of non-residential uses on local streets within Minimal Change Areas (as defined in Clause 22.08)

Retain existing dwelling stock, where practical, and any associated extensions/alterations maintain or enhance its residential character.

To ensure that adequate provision is made for on-site vehicle parking, bicycle parking and (where necessary) drop off/pick up areas for all non-residential uses/s in a safe manner.

Car parking facilities be provided to the side or rear or basement of the premises, unless the use is in a preferred location abutting main or secondary roads (as defined in Clause 21.12) or in a Housing Diversity Area (as defined in Clause 22.07)

Reduced on-site car parking must be supported by a Traffic and Parking Report

Retain any high priority significant trees or landscape features within the design where possible.

Ensure that where car parking is proposed in the front setback (in limited circumstances where the use is in a preferred location), a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage must be provided.

Where car parking areas abut residential dwelling, an adequate landscape buffer (minimum width of 1.0m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

DISAPPEARED

June 21, 2012

The Stats: Cars & Dwellings

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

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has started releasing its data from the last census. Many residents, and a few councillors, have stated that they would prefer to wait for all the figures to come out BEFORE a Community Plan is ratified. The reasoning is clear. Unless we know hwo many people, how many cars, how many dwellings, how many aged, etc. planning can be hit and miss.

We present below two sets of figures:

1. The number of dwellings and their composition (ie family, lone person households) as well as the structure of these dwellings.

2. The number of cars per family/dwelling

Both sets of figures provide some startling results. For example: lone person and single parent households represent nearly a third of all Glen Eira residents making this an extremely high proportion who will be hit the hardest by continual rate rises. Then there are the number of cars per family/dwelling. Again, if anyone wanted ‘evidence’ as to our reliance on the motor car, then it is here in spades. Yet, the question needs to be asked: what is council doing about traffic management, pedestrian safety, bike safety, etc. etc.

Please have a look at the tables and offer your thoughts. Click on the tables themselves to enlarge.

June 13, 2012

Council & The Inviolability Of The Law!

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

We must admit to being quite amused when certain councillors start spouting the inviolability of the law in Glen Eira – especially planning law. We’ve already had instances of the nonsense surrounding ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’; the same is now happening with planning! It is sacrosanct ONLY WHEN IT SUITS. All one needs to do is look at countless recent planning decisions to see which standards and guidelines happen to be applied and which are conveniently ignored. To therefore turn around and argue that the Planning Scheme and its ‘prescriptions’ are set in concrete is hypocritical in the extreme.

We’ve also digressed from our usual format in that we’ve added a slight commentary to some of the statements made by councillors in this post. It concerns Item 9.1 – The 3 storey Glen Huntly Rd development. Apologies for the length, but it’s important that residents receive the full picture of what went on last night.

Penhalluriack: Stated that the motion ‘concerned’ him and that he moved it be adjourned until next council meeting. There was no seconder.

TANG: Moved, with changes – permit granted (3 storeys and 12 dwellings). Motion amended to include 40 square metres of open space for some of the units. Pilling seconded. Tang began by saying that this was a ‘difficult’ application because it is ‘unique’ in that an ‘agreement’ had been reached between the developer and immediate neighbours. His motion is “not in accordance with the agreement reached’ between the developer and neighbours and that he is urging the upholding of ResCode requirements (Ie open space). Mentioned some of the objections (parking, visual bulk, etc) made by objectors. Talked about “applying planning scheme’ such as ‘increased set backs’. Said that increased open space and set backs helps to ‘try and preserve Glen Eira’s streetscape’. ….Said that the ‘agreement tries to address the primary concerns’ of people adjacent to the site and this is a ‘novel way’ of addressing their concerns. But ‘where I have an issue (with this is that) we need to first apply our town planning policy’….(and) ‘have regard to the objections of all ….’we can put weight on the objections’ (from immediate neighbours)…..(prefers the council way since this) ‘allows all objectors the opportunity if they wish to appeal the decision’ (and if there are amended plans these will go to all parties who objected) …’If any other objector who hasn’t been a party to this agreement (therefore approving the agreement) ‘would I think result in those parties having an unfair disadvantage’ (sic)….

COMMENT: Wouldn’t this very same principle apply regardless of whether the ‘agreement’ between developer and neighbours was passed by council in that the objectors who disagree with this would then have the opportunity to go to VCAT?

PILLING: Noted that this is along a tram corridor. Supported the motion because it ‘improved’ on private open space . Thought that the ‘agreement’ was a ‘bit presumptious’ and ‘we need to follow proper process’ and that this ‘would set a poor precedent’.

ESAKOFF: supported. ‘I think to do anything else would be very bad precedent’….(agreement) ‘doesn’t meet council’s transition policy’ (which is there to) ‘protect’ (residents in Housing Diversity Areas, although this policy is) ‘yet to be adopted, I understand that’. Said that in the past VCAT have ‘tended to agree’ (with this abuttal issue in that )’there does need to be sensitive planning and good set back”…..’and vcat has actually supported us in the past on various applications’….’problem….on principle I feel disinclined to do that (go back)….’we need to maintain that policy…it would set a terrible precedent and would continue all along our Housing Diversity Areas’. Said that the ‘problem’ will continue along Balaclava Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, etc. ‘along all our tram routes’….’the amenity of the properties which sit behind these developments needs to be protected’

COMMENT: such concern – yet all that the ‘Transitions policy proposes is a setback NOT A ZONE. Thus a single storey house can still have double or triple, or worse, levels peering into people’s backyards under this ‘guidelines’! Why not a zone, councillors? Election time is definitely closing in!

LIPSHUTZ: Started off by saying that at first he was inclined to agree with the officers recommendations ‘but then I ….thought about it longer’ and he will now support the Tang motion. ‘We have laws’ (that have to be obeyed)….’if we allow the objectors …to make private arrangements…then we’ve got no policy…. (people think) ‘we’re allowing our suburbs to be ruined’….’we’re fighting very hard against that’ (but if this arrangement goes ahead) ‘we will be giving away everything we have fought for for so many years’. (The transitions policy is for all areas)…..’yes it’s unfortunate’ (in this case but) ‘the bigger picture is that we have to look at our policy’ (and make sure that all properties are safeguarded)…’because we’re here to protect our neighbourhood not just one particular property’….’I had to think very hard about that’….

COMMENT: Amazing how ‘flexible’ this policy can be when it suits! So much for the “law”. This would of course explain why so many car parking waivers are granted; why of late, disabled parking is turned into visitor car parking spaces, and why 20 or 8 storey proposals in various areas are okay. That’s surely ‘protecting neighbourhoods isn’t it Cr Lipshutz?

PENHALLURIACK: Said this application ‘concerned’ him ‘because we are turning our back on what (residents) want…we are elected to represent our constituents’. Speculated that if the developer and neighbours had got together before the application went in, that there wouldn’t be ‘any fuss’ and ‘probably go straight through’. Said that the only dangerous precedent set here would be ‘in ignoring’ what people want and ‘then applying from the outside some policies’. Stated that he’d met with the two couples living behind the development. His concerns were ‘assuaged’ because they had ‘professional advice’ (town planner) ‘and they were happy with that development’ and it’s ‘foolhardy to go against’ what constituents want.

TANG: question to Penhalluriack on the other 31 objectors. ‘how would you correlate giving the constituents what they want without dealing with the other 31 objectors’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘that’s why I moved for this to be adjourned for 3 weeks’ so that the views of the other objectors can be sought during this time ‘and hopefully consensus reached without the cost’ of VCAT.

ESAKOFF: another question to Penhalluriack. ‘If a similar deal….in a minimal change area….(where limit is 2 dwellings)….if the neighbours agreed to that would you also agree to that (ie 4, 5 or more dwellings) ‘and not see that as a precedent’?

PENHALLURIACK: Answered that the transiition isn’t yet a policy and still needs to be ‘ratified by Council’. ‘If it’s going against the town planning requirements then of course it will be a precedent’.

MAGEE: Said that this application probably was ’12 months in the planning’ and that it now ‘seems odd that at the 12th hour’ there’s this agreement and people ‘doing deals’. There has been a planning conference, numerous opportunities for developers, architects and objectors to be in touch, ‘we run a great risk in our city being planned on the run’…..’I can only assess this application on what I read…..’not privy’ (to the conversations between developer and neighbours or objectors)….’all I’ve got to go on here is what I read and what I hear from around the table….(didn’t like the fact that after all this time there is now this ‘agreement’ and) ‘it doesn’t sit well with me’….’this is something they should have done four months ago, not 24 hours ago’.

COMMENT: Dereliction of duty perhaps? Hard to believe that of 33 objectors none contacted councillors directly! If this is the first that Cr Magee knows about the application, then we suspect that either he has not taken the time to familiarise himself properly with the issues, or that the entire process of delegation to officers is inadequate when the decision makers have very little notion of what is going on!

HYAMS: Was also at the meeting with objectors living behind the development. ‘we made sure they knew what they were doing’….’they knew what they were doing’…(seeing this as) ‘the lesser of two evils’…..’I was inclined to go along with it, then I started thinking about the implications of that….’if we do accept this deal which is less than what we hoped for with our transition zones…..(and this area will be further developed and that policy states that) ‘applications have to respect their surroundings we might be setting a precedent for other neighbours’. Some of the other 33 objectors mightn’t feel greatly affected but ‘most would feel that they prefer 12 units to 14’. Said it was ‘unusual’ that objectors want something that is ‘less strict’ on the developer. Referred to Penhalluriack’s point about representing contituents ‘when it comes to planning we are actually elected to apply planning law’ (as well as representing people and who are likely to have) ‘other developments built near them’….(Said that they’re still waiting for permission to exhibit the transition policy and therfore can’t be seen to be) ‘backing away from it’. Said that the ‘philosophy set out in that policy is actually council policy’.

COMMENT: top marks for gobbledygook must go to Hyams’ last cited comment.

TANG: In response to Magee’s points about timelines, Tang said that ‘council does offer opportunities to get together’ BEFORE via the ‘pre certification process’.(so that developers can amend the application before it goes any further and there’s a formal application)…..’The agreement does support 14 dwellings in an altered configuration’ but doesn’t ‘talk about….visitor parking….agreement may deal with a couple of the primary objections….it doesn’t deal with all of those….(He then went on to address ‘misconceptions’ in that ‘half of Glen Eira’s policies’ (ie Housing diversity versus minimal sites) and that the transitions policy tries to add some ‘prescription, tries to give certainty and further guidance’. (The policy therefore needs to apply here and a lot of work has been done to ensure that the site is appropriate to the neighbourhood)…..’there is a mediation process at vcat’ (which will avoid costs and could be ‘cut off at the pass’ at this mediation ‘point’).

MOTION CARRIED WITH ONLY PENHALLURIACK VOTING AGAINST.

June 8, 2012

What Residents Think

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

Just some extracts from the first few submissions. We will put up others shortly.

“ One only example of the continuing entrenched systemic culture of intentional poor governance. Repeated unfair treatment of lies, misleading deception, misrepresentation, secrecy, lack of openness, transparency, genuine accountability, responsibility, honesty, integrity, or good faith”…..”Any rate rise above CPI is excessive.”
“Everything that I’ve loved about living in this area has now gone and been destroyed. A lot of the blame I think is because of the way you councillors have allowed development to happen without really thinking about what it does to ordinary families like mine…..”I just want you to know that you as councillors will have to have it on your conscience about what you’re doing to people. There’s lots that you could do but you’re not doing anything worthwhile that I can see will help families. It’s all for the developers and nothing in the plan will stop this.”
“My husband and I would like Option 2 (Passive Recreational Space) we both feel that we are already adequately served with various sporting facilities and spaces within the City of Glen Eira.”
“The projected population/household increases need to be managed by Council and not driven by developers. It would be better to have more two or three single storey units per site which is more in line with why people chose to live in Caulfield/Glen Eira. The livability of the municipality can not accommodate any more inappropriate jerry-built future slums with their associated traffic and litter issues.”
“the area should be developed as a Australian Native Garden”
“The interviews/focus groups sample and factor analysis has given us some information. The on-line survey had Five relevant/pertinent questions, the forums as noted by me previously asked question re issues.concerns not priorities. We should be aiming for consistency of information sought across all groups.”
“”The apparent use of Pulbic Open Space levies by GE Council to maintain open space is entirely wrong. It disadvantages both developers and the public. Open space levies should be used exclusively to fund the acquisition of open space. Maintenance costs for parks should be funded from operational budgets…..Shortly after the period of consultation for the Community Plan began, I downloaded all of the documents, which included a Community Plan 2008-2013. I struggled to understand why we were asked to consider this document but continued to refer to it. Today (June 5^th) I discovered that the plan on-line has recently been replaced with a document titled the “Glen Eira Community Plan”. There is no date on the plan and therefore I do not know the years it intended to cover. I assume however that this is the document GE Council wants me to read…..My initial impression is that most of the plan is filled with motherhood statements – and fails to acknowledge and address the key concerns of the community being, inappropriate development and the impact of rates….When will GE Council introduce Structure Plans for its three significant activity centres?….When will GE Council introduce the Local Law that permits a Notice of Motion? When will GE Councillors be trained to use the microphone and to speak loudly enough to be heard by all sitting in the public gallery? Will GE Council consider establishing S86 committees as Community reference Panels to include those community members who wish to be involved in decision-making processes of GE Council?….Will GE Council introduce a policy whereby no trees will be removed without an opportunity for community feedback and without presenting the findings of the experts that advise removal?…Will GE council introduce a scheme whereby Victoria Seniors Cards are accepted for discount rates (albeit this may only be a off-peak) providing access for Card Holders to GE Faciliting including GESAC as at other aquatic centres around Victoria?”

June 6, 2012

Community Plan/Budget: Short On ‘Solutions’

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[15] Comments

The draft Community Plan deserves credit for highlighting the problems and issues which will, and already are, impacting dramatically on residents. One doesn’t need a crystal ball to realise that traffic management, planning, and open space are key concerns. The Community Plan has this to say on these matters:

Population/Planning: “Additional dwellings required to support population changes in the future will impact upon Council’s town planning, traffic, parking, assets and infrastructure services. The appropriateness of new development and maintaining heritage of local housing continues to be a strong concern of local residents. Council needs to work with the State Government to ensure Victorian planning controls appropriately balance the needs of current and future residents.”

Traffic: “The Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity 2009 (VISTA) commissioned by the Department of Transport reveals that 72 per cent of all trips in Glen Eira during a weekday are undertaken as a car driver or passenger, ten per cent use public transport, 15 per cent walking and two per cent use a bicycle. These facts reveal opportunities to target and promote sustainable transport options”.

So, what STRATEGIES, what actions, what performance measures and what investment does the budget and the Strategic Resource Plan propose in order to address and resolve these ‘problems’. Sadly, very little. The above quotes are a good indication of how bereft, and unwilling, council is to tackle the core of the problem rather than merely tinkering with the edges. Planning should be about more than ‘maintaining heritage’ or working with government. It needs to ensure that the Planning Scheme has done everything it possibly can to ‘appropriately balance the needs of current and future residents’. There is no mention of this in the Action Plan apart from the very limited C87 and the ‘transition’ policy – already rubber stamped! Nor will the creation of 4 speed humps per year solve the growing problem of rat runs through local residential streets. If ‘safety’ is the primary concern, then much, much more needs to be planned and budgeted for. Residents should really ask: how many traffic lights have been installed; how many pedestrian crossings; how many roundabouts; how many splitter islands in the past two years?

The most obvious failing of these plans is the inability (or perhaps deliberate) blurring of what constitutes a strategy and an objective. We maintain that very few ‘strategies’ exist. The community/council plan is loaded with lofty goals, but is short on feasible, comprehensive strategies. The result is a complete lack of integration between goals, strategies and performance measures. Yet, heading after heading proudly states ‘strategy’. The following are NOT strategies – they are warm, fluffy, motherhood statements undoubtedly intended to provide the illusion that something is actually being done. We ask readers: are these ‘strategies’?

Improve safety and movement of road users and provide a fair and equitable balance of parking.
Improve road safety and manage congestion on the local road network.
Plan for a mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in different stages of their life-cycle within the City.
Ensure new multi-dwelling residential development is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character in Glen Eira’s minimal change areas
Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process.
Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.

The list goes on an on. None are carefully laid out strategies that clarify, detail, nor provide clear criteria against which performance may be evaluated in the Action Plan and its ‘measures’. The result will be more of the same – a budget and council/community plan big on rhetoric, but failing in action and appropriate funding.

June 5, 2012

VCAT: More Council Failures?

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

Readers may remember a highly contentious planning application for 1a Albany Court, North Caulfield. This was for the extension of numbers and access for a synagogue. The gallery was full of objectors and the decision by councillors was split. This has now gone (again) to VCAT in the hope to extend the pedestrian carriageway. The full VCAT decision may be accessed at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/669.html

We present some extracts from the member’s decision which highlights the fact that Council:

Hasn’t sought enforcement orders for continual breaches of the permit
Hasn’t bothered to notify residents of this new application

“The Council explained there had been a synagogue (shul) operating at 1A Albany Court for a number of years without planning approval.”

“Nearby residents oppose this application for two main reasons. The first reason is the history of non-compliance by the permit applicant with the planning scheme (for operating an illegal synagogue); with the current planning permit (for erecting a walkway that is not on the land to which the permit applies); and other non-compliance with permit conditions. This is not a matter that I can deal with as this application is not an enforcement proceeding for compliance with the planning permit.”

“The Council initially opposed this amendment but during the hearing advised it no longer opposed this because the amendment is a relatively minor requirement. On the face of it, the creation of an easement may be considered a secondary aspect of this proposal. However, it is also an aspect for which separate planning permission is required and the Council needs to then determine if material detriment may result that necessitates the giving of public notice. As the planning application lodged with the Council has not been processed, I am not aware if the Council made a decision on this aspect of the processing of the application. In any event, the notification given as part of this section 87A application was limited to four properties at 2 and 3 Albany Court, 4 Grimwade Court and 18 Kambea Grove. If notice was required as part of a planning application, it would have been to at least the adjoining properties (as the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires), and the notification undertaken by the Applicant in this case does not include all properties adjoining 2 St Aubins Avenue. Further, the extent of notification given in this application did not include all persons who originally objected, nor the persons who were originally notified of the proposed synagogue at 1 and 1A Albany Court (as identified in the Council’s Practice Note material provided to the Tribunal after lodgement of this application). For all of these reasons, I am not persuaded it is appropriate to include the additional planning permission for the creation of an easement in this permit”

May 23, 2012

Debate: Does It Really Exist?

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

We beg readers indulgence since we’re about to repeat ourselves. We have continually stated that residents have made it absolutely clear that their prime concern is inappropriate and/or over development. We have also stated that part of the problem is that far too much power is granted to officers via the delegations process and councillors rarely get a look in.

We’ve also remarked on how Tuesday night’s council meeting had a warm and fluffy feeling where everybody was congratulating everybody else for GESAC, for parks and gardens, and so forth. Yet, hidden away in the agenda there was another draft of delegations.

Residents should expect that what happens in chamber is more than back slapping and mutual admiration societies. That when important agenda items crop up (ie delegations, environmental sustainability) that there at least be ‘robust’ discussion and that these recommendations are not simply rubber stamped by a bunch of either disinterested or compliant councillors.

What we’ve done below is feature the time taken to decide on some of these agenda items as well as the discussion on the GESAC report. Readers should note that delegations warranted a bare 90 seconds of council time. Compare this to the amount of time expended on the back slapping!

9.1 GESAC

Moved Lipshutz; seconded Lobo

LIPSHUTZ: started off with explaining that GESAC opened on 7^th May with a ‘soft opening’ and the official opening will be on 22^nd June. The facility is an ‘unmitigated success…..beyond our wildest dreams….quickly taken up by members…..almost 5000 members….because 95%…is indoors (it can be used all year round)….(so the delay) ‘whilst unfortunate is not significant’…clubs haven’t used it fully (as yet because of) ‘mid season’….we expect that the next round of seasons’ (facilities will be taken up fully)….83 schools within (area)….’of course teething problems’…(such a success that contacted by Australian Properties & other councils and invited to) ‘nominate for an award for innovation’…’at the present moment this is the benchmark’…’feather in the cap’ (for this and previous councils and public for their vision)…’wonderful facility’

LOBO: GESAC is ‘a jewel in the crown of Glen Eira’….’privileged to be one of the foundation members’…’great place offering all year round health’…..’I visit GESAC twice a day’….4914 (members)….numbers skyrocketing….’was budgeted to cost $41.2 million and to the great financial management of this Council ….has paid $37 million’….(staff members live locally and work part time. Rest of speech was basically a regurgitation of the Newton provided Officers Report apart from the aside – ‘Glen Eira Debates and Glen Eira Residents’ Association need to take a positive look of this worthwhile project……(instead of negative)….’it takes courage to say a spade is a spade’….(Thanked the Steering committee – ie Lipshutz, Esakoff & Magee for their ‘fantastic’ job and Newton and his directors).

ESAKOFF: began by saying how as a child learning to swim at the Bentleigh pool the transition is ‘quite amazing’….seed that was planted back in 2005….consultation period….to watch it grow …through that process of design…..watching it grow and now seeing it in its full glory (an amazing experience)….(thanked government for subsidies).

MAGEE: GESAC ‘has no equal’…’gratifying to be a councillor at this time’….’this council is the major stakeholder’….’we are the ones that built it…..we couldn’t have done it without our community…..community through their rates will fund this…(community has endorsed GESAC and) ‘waited patiently’….(5000 members shows that community) ‘weren’t put off by GESAC opening that few months late’…..(took so long because of quality work) ‘the fittings, workmanship’….GESAC will be there for the next 50, 60 hopefully the next 100 years’….(thanked Waite and his department, but ultimately has to thank) ‘our CEO…without….(him the project wouldn’t be anywhere near the quality it is)….’nowhere near as successful …..’thank…from the bottom of my heart’….

TANG: ‘thrilled’ it’s open….’great disappointment that construction project that went behind time’….(visited on Sunday and compared to the pools of his youth. Place was packed with all range of ages)….(Numbers are ) ‘far beyond council’s expectations’ (and thus this isn’t just) ‘a white elephant, a monument to how big a building can we build’….’community facility’….(needs people and there are people there)….’budgetary aspect is certainly something that we have to report on’ (42 million and spent 37 million) ‘and hopefully not too much more’….we need to monitor carefully’….(courts were something community crying out for) ‘starting in the middle of the season….hasn’t been great….that’s the area for improvement’…..’have to get the people who are driving to Nunawading, driving to Albert Park (who don’t have these facilities to take up the ones at GESAC)

Asked CEO question about press reports on membership and compensation for members

NEWTON: ‘members have not been charged anything up til now….(that will start this week and first debits in June as recognition that project was delayed and some of these people) ‘would have had to pay memberships at other places’….’that’s been very well received’

PILLING: agreed with other councillors and that he and his friends have been down and it is a ‘great facility’…..(said that) ‘there are some gaps’ (in the courts)…’that’s understandable given’ (missed start to season)….’aquatic features are full’ (whenever he’s visited. Hoped that over the next 6 months all the courts would be) ‘well utilised’…..’down the track we will have to consider Carnegie Pool…..I don’t think the success of GESAC should (influence Carnegie)…I’m looking forward to having an argument down the track….

HYAMS: ‘great work that many people have done’ (steering committee, ceo, staff members)….’there will be gaps in the high ball courts….because they can’t transfer over in time…(but expected to see them all busy in a couple of months)…’little parking left (when he’s gone done which is an indication of) ‘how well it’s going’…..’if anyone wants any indication of (what people think of it just look on Facebook site). …’most significant capital project for years and years to come’….(agreed that Carnegie Pool was a facility that should be retained)

LIPSHUTZ: Esakoff had spoken about ‘seeds’ and coming to fruition. Lipshutz then said that ‘someone has to plant that seed’ (Newton)…..(in 2005 when new council came in Newton told them) ‘what a mess our two pools were’…..’losing money hand over fist and he certainly planted a seed……(went on to say how hard the Pool steering committee had worked and Waite and his team)….’builder certainly tried to cut corners…because of the way our project team worked (corners) were not cut’…’previous pools were losing money….this pool is built to make money…it will also be a financial success….’.

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY – took approximately 18 minutes.

ITEM 9.2 quarterly report – 3 speakers – Pilling, Lipshutz, Tang. Approximately 7 minutes

Item 9.3 VCAT watch – 2 speakers – Lipshutz & Tang – approximately 5 minutes

Item 9.7 Park user surveys – 7 speakers Esakoff, Lipshutz, Tang, Magee, Pilling, Penhalluriack, Hyams – approximately 13 minutes

Item 9.8 – environmental report – 3 speakers – Tang, Pilling, Lipshutz – approximately 8 minutes

ITEM 9.9 DELEGATIONS – 1 speaker – Lipshutz

APPROXIMATELY 90 SECONDS AND THIS INCLUDES THE AMENDMENT/CHANGES PUT BY LIPSHUTZ.

May 16, 2012

Appeal Rights – Going, Going,….Gone?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[2] Comments

State moves to reduce building appeal rights

Jason Dowling

May 16, 2012

AN OVERHAUL of Victoria’s planning laws will begin next week when Planning Minister Matthew Guy introduces legislation that could mean up to 11,000 building permits being assessed annually without the current notification to neighbours or appeal rights. The government said the changes would apply to ”small-scale, low-impact applications such as home extensions and small works such as fences”.

But a detailed ministerial advisory report released last Friday indicates the new system would also be used for new buildings and subdivisions.

Council and community groups say the public is being kept in the dark on the extent of the planning changes, known as ”code assess”, including what rights of appeal will remain and if residents will be notified if next door decides to add a second storey.

Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the changes were code for ”unchecked development in our suburbs”. ”It will strip away a person’s fundamental right to say no to inappropriate development,” he warned.

Mr Guy told a parliamentary committee yesterday the planning changes would be for ”small” building applications.

”Where we have those small-scale low-impact applications, that’s where I see in residential areas a code assessment model brought forward and that may be for a pergola [or] home extension,” he said. ”Home extensions constitute around 20 per cent of the 55,000 permits that go through the planning system every year,” he said.

Mr Guy said most people did not care if they had no say over their neighbour renovating.

”The vast majority of Victorians want to have a say on planning, not around someone’s pergola or home extension. It is whether an eight-storey building can be built next to them, for instance,” he said.

The Property Council’s Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, said the planning changes should include the fast-tracking of multi-unit developments. ”We would ask that the whole system looks at multiple storeys,” she said. ”If we are just going to play around at the sides then we are not going to improve the system.”

But Ian Wood from Save Our Suburbs said there had not been enough community consultation about the planning changes. He said giving the community notification and appeal rights on planning ”leads to better planning outcomes and more accountability”.

Mary Drost, from community group Planning Backlash, said the government should make clear the planning changes before they were introduced to Parliament.

RMIT planning expert Michael Buxton said the government’s planning review was a missed opportunity.

”For example, one way to reduce work loads [of councils] is to introduce mandatory height controls in various areas so developers know that here we can build a 30-storey tower, there we can build a seven and there it is only two, and that would reduce the workload for councils overnight, that kind of certainty,” he said.

Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, said while councils welcomed planning changes to reduce red tape, they would not support the fast-tracking of multi-unit developments.

May 11, 2012

The Leader, Council & The MRC

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Planning
[15] Comments

About a month ago the Caulfield Leader featured a story on the VCAT objection to the centre of the racecourse development. The alleged ‘culprit’ in all this was one woman, who through her objection was singly responsible for holding up the entire project. We’ve learnt the facts about what really happened. In chronological order, they are:

The resident was phoned up by The Leader. An ‘interview’ time was arranged
The reporter plus photographer duly arrived and were taken by two residents on a visit to the racecourse
Discussion revealed that The Leader had been contacted by none other than Jeff Akehurst and told that there was one objector holding everything up.
During the tour the reporter found that her shoes were totally unsuitable for wandering through the mud and manure filled tunnel at the top of Glen Eira Rd. The stench was also remarked upon as were the numerous locked gates
Both reporter and photographer were appalled by the condition of the racecourse once they viewed it
The argument was put, and seemingly accepted by the reporter that given the inaction by the MRC and council for the past decade, another few months in order to get it absolutely right would scarcely make a difference

So what happened between the visit and the publication of the article? What pressures might have been brought to bear to produce an article that basically laid all the blame at the feet of one resident and absolved the MRC and Council from all responsibility? What role did Akehurst and Hyams have in this whole affair? Does this in any shape or form constitute harassment (maybe bullying?) and the attempt to possibly exert undue pressure on a resident exercising her legal rights?

What also needs to be noted is:

The resident had previously met with the MRC and outlined her objections and thinking. She has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide the MRC with scientific research on the issues of concrete versus softer surfaces, standards for wheelchair access and other aspects. The understanding was that the MRC would go away, consider this, and organise another meeting. She is still waiting for this to occur! It is also worthy of mention that Hyams was present at this only meeting. His first words to her were: ‘Why are you holding up the development’?

Numerous readers have commented in the past on the ‘unholy alliance’ that appears to have been forged between the Leader, its editorial policy, and this Council. We are just staggered that what a reporter saw does not feature at all in the ensuing article. We also find it concerning that a council officer calls a newspaper and points the finger at a resident. This is technically legal since objectors’ details are freely available, but it certainly isn’t ethical when combined with the (probable?) intent of finding a convenient scapegoat for a poorly conceived plan, the acquiescence of Council, and the simple fact that the MRC has for years been a law unto themselves.

To what extent the MRC are a law unto themselves is evident by the sudden frenzied erection of hundreds and hundreds of metres of plastic white fences within the racecourse centre WHICH DID NOT FEATURE IN THE PERMIT! This again just makes a mockery of the MRC claim that one resident is holding up development when work is (perhaps illegally?) progressing. It also looks like (yellow) concrete is the preferred option since stacks of reinforced wire mesh is lying alongside ripped up sections of turf. This couldn’t possibly be an attempt to pre-empt the VCAT hearing could it?

After nearly a year of total silence on the Racecourse issue by this Council, residents have every right to conclude that their interests are far from being looked after by Council. It is surely not too much to expect that the likes of Newton, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling find out exactly what is going on and report back to the community. It is also not unreasonable to expect this Council to enforce the conditions of the so called ‘agreement’ in a timely, transparent, and open fashion.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates