At the first council meeting of the year, we anticipate that the deferred item on delegations will again be presented with the ‘conditions and limitations’ sections fully legible this time! The comments made here are limited to the planning area, but there are many other items of delegation being suggested, all of which require in-depth consideration by councillors before any rushed decisions are made.

Delegations are particularly vital in planning applications. We provide the following comparisons so that residents may see exactly how much Glen Eira cedes to Officers with the subsequent removal of decision making from councillors. These comments are not meant to decry the value of delegations per se – they are vital for any municipality to carry out its day to day operations. Whereas other councils delegate with strict limitations on the powers of officers, this does not appear to be the case here. Glen Eira delegates 97-98% of its planning to unelected council staff who, we believe, do not have guidelines from council as to what levels of development controls the councillors consider reasonable or appropriate. In many cases ‘political’ decisions and judgments must be made, but without councillors’ guidance on such matters the City Planners are at a loss to know what to do. Planners are competent to make many planning judgments, but are not ‘competent – in a technical sense – to make value judgments that require familiarity with wishes, needs, and opinions of the community. Councillors have this competence, for they are directly elected by the community to represent community values.

We ask readers to consider the following comparisons between Glen Eira and other councils in order to assess how little control our elected representatives have over planning in this municipality and how little decision making by officers is accessible, transparent and accountable to the community.

For instance:

1. Kingston, Darebin, Moreland, Frankston, Banyule, Cardinia (amongst others) do not simply have a ‘delegated planning committee’ (DPC) – they have decreed that such committees are constituted as ‘Special Committees’. This means that agendas are published, meeting schedules are published, minutes are published, residents officially address committees (some allow 5 mins), and most importantly the committees consist of councillors – all chaired by the Mayor. The role of officers is simply to present and/or provide ‘advice’.  This is a far cry from the manner in which DPC’s operate in Glen Eira
2. Many councils provide monthly reports to full council meetings where information is provided on: how many applications; how many permits granted by officers, DPC’s; how many refused by the various officers, etc. In Glen Eira, the only report which is published is that which documents applications before VCAT. We doubt if councillors, and certainly not the public, have any idea as to the breakdown of applications and their acceptance or refusal.

 There are many other differences as well – 

• ‘Councillor call in’ – where a single councillor has the power to ‘call in’ any application for decision at a full council meeting (Port Phillip; Cardinia; Bayside; Kingston; Banyule; Casey; Frankston to name but a few!)
• Number of objections clearly specified as the trigger for panel or full council determination (often 5, some 10 – In Glen Eira we find the phrase ‘significant number’!)
• Height levels that determine whether applications go to DCP, Council or officers. In Glen Eira two storey to be determined by officers alone)
• Parking restrictions – ie. if a development intends to waive parking restrictions whether or not this should go to council or DCP (Port Phillip)  

Glen Eira’s Delegations under the Planning and Environment Act clearly cede enormous power to select individuals. We maintain that these delegations limit councillors’ input and lack the transparency and accountability that is evident in the processes adopted by other councils. Councillors should not be simply ‘rubber stamping’ these staff suggestions. In short, Councillors are elected, of the Community, by the Community, for the Community. Council staff, on the other hand, are not elected at all. It is certainly time that Councillors took the reins in running this Council as is their required duty and to ensure that decision making on something as important as planning is not left to unelected bureaucrats alone.

From The Age:

‘Garden state’ at risk as population flourishes

Marika Dobbin and Jason Dowling

Victoria’s reputation as the garden state is under threat due to its increasing population, the first ever inventory of public land and open space for metropolitan Melbourne has found.

The state government commissioned audit by the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council found an increasing population and limited opportunities for the creation of new parks and gardens would mean further declines in public open space per capita for all municipalities bar one – the south-eastern City of Knox.

It forecast that open space per capita would halve by 2026 for growth municipalities with rapid housing development, such as Cardinia in the east, Hume in the north-west and Whittlesea in the north-east.

It warned that councils and government authorities must be vigilant in their planning processes to offset population growth with the creation of new regional parks.

”Otherwise levels of open space per capita in outer municipalities may decrease to lower levels than some inner municipalities,” it said.

The report identified hundreds of sites, totalling 1161 hectares, of disused land owned by the Crown and by more than 22 government departments and public authorities.

But it found there were limited opportunities to convert surplus public land such as decommissioned schools, old rail reserves and unused buildings into green open space, particularly in established areas, because most of the sites were small and fragmented.

It recommended a central listing of all surplus public land that would give notice of forthcoming sales, so that local councils would have better chances to buy land for the creation of new parks and gardens.

The audit also found that sales of surplus public land have reaped $600 million over the past 11 years to meet revenue targets set by the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Centre for Population and Urban Research director Bob Birrell said the report revealed that not only was there no money from government to create new open space, but that scarce space in established suburbs was being lost.

”We have continual claims from government and those in the planning fraternity that we can have it both ways – a denser city and a more liveable city,” he said. ”But I think that this report shows that’s not true.”

He said the report showed developers of apartment blocks and housing subdivisions were required to pay ”next to nothing” to help establish additional open space in their local areas to account for extra residents.

VicHealth chief executive Todd Harper said communities with access to green open space had a better quality of life, improved physical and mental health, and lower mortality rates. He said such space was particularly important for young children.

”It’s not just a mater of protecting green open space but enhancing what we’ve got so that it attracts people and is better used, whether that be with lighting, paths or play equipment,” Mr Harper said.

The report recommended that water production areas, such as those owned by Melbourne Water, be opened up for other activities such as nature observation, bushwalking and picnicking.

It found that 145,620 hectares or 26 per cent of land in metropolitan Melbourne had native vegetation, higher than previously thought. It found significant areas of native vegetation in the outer fringes of Melbourne.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A reminder to readers that submissions to the VEAC discussion paper may still be lodged – extension of time has been granted until mid January. (See: http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/investigation/metropolitan-melbourne-investigation/reports for a full rundown on the various discussion papers).

Below is a table deriving from the Discussion Paper.

Questions this raises:

• Why is so much of the scant public open space in Glen Eira primarily used for sporting facilities and hence a minority of the population?
• Why has there been no review of the Open Space Stategy in over a decade?
• Why has the Recreation Needs Study, which was the catalyst for GESAC, become the primary strategic vision for the use of public opn space?
• How much public open space is GESAC removing from the community?
• How much public open space will Council actually gain from the Caulfield Racecourse fiasco?

VCAT is continually accused by councillors of being the fly in the ointment over planning applications, rather than looking elsewhere for the potential culprit. We highlight one recent case to illustrate the problems with this view.

On December 2^nd VCAT varied conditions under appeal by the developer ‘at 257 – 259 Alma Road, Caulfield North for a shop and nine dwellings as a four storey development. This included a waiver of loading bay requirements and a reduction in car parking requirements”.  We focus on some of the member’s comments, especially since the Planning Scheme review basically ignored the following issues. The member’s comments also raise questions as to how well prepared Council officers are in defending the position taken, and whether councillors really understand what they’re doing!

“All parties acknowledged that local policy 22.07 was not clear in its direction to assess proposals in a Mixed Use Zone. Ms Bowden (for council) submitted the policy must be interpreted according to the “residential areas” provisions as a mixed use zone is a residential zone, although she acknowledged that some of the commercial area policies provide more relevant design considerations, notably about addressing interfaces to residential zones.

I agree that a mixed use zone does form part of the suite of residential zones and therefore the logical interpretation of clause 22.07 is to consider the site as part of a residential area. However, the reading of this section of the policy becomes somewhat illogical as one of the policy statements is to “Recognise that these areas offer opportunities for multi-unit development, but at a lower scale and density than development in the commercial and mixed use areas[5] of neighbourhood centres”.

A logical interpretation of this provision is that mixed use areas can and should provide more intensive scale and density than other residential zones. The policy is also to “encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases”. 

A little further on we have: 

“It is within my scope in assessing review application P757/2010 to delete the condition to require balconies to be within the property boundary but as the condition was not contested I am unable to determine why Council imposed this condition. I note the urban design assessment tabled by Council makes no comment about the overhang of balconies other than to say “place the balconies on the building to create a more consistent building rhythm”. To build over public land requires consent of the public land manager, being Council. I therefore will not direct to remove the condition as I do not know if such permission would be granted. However, I note that based on submission and evidence put to me about the general building design I do not see that their overhang will necessarily result in excessive bulk to the building, provided the balconies are of a suitable material and form to break up the building mass. 

(Ms Bowden) stated Council had taken a cautious approach ….that requires the third level of the building be setback 9 metres from this side boundary. In response to my questions, Ms Bowden was unable to identify why 9 metres was the chosen distance to setback, as this was a condition imposed by the Councillors at the meeting that considered the application. The permit applicant contests that the permit condition is unnecessary, unfounded and would result in substantial loss of internal floor space”.

From today’s Caulfield Leader –

Set higher standards

Tonight’s Special Committee Meeting (Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Lipshutz) decided unanimously to ‘delay’ consideration of the C60 Amendment and the centre of the racecourse planning application. Moved by Lipshutz, who occupied the chair, council will now call for ‘community comment’ on both issues. Objectors will be given 3 minutes each to address council  – at a date yet to be determined.

Ostensibly, some may see this as a ‘victory’ for residents. We however, are less assured of the possible outcome. Nothing has been ventured except the belated recognition that this is an important issue, and the community should be heard. We say, about bloody time! Why hasn’t this occurred months and months ago?

More to the point however, what occurred tonight was another example of politics, in all its glory. Under the rubric of ‘let’s listen to the people’, councillors neatly avoided the reality of the situation – ie a new government and the imponderables that this represents!! So it makes us fairly suspicious as to the eventual outcomes. Residents will have their 3 minutes in the spotlight; councillors claim they will listen, BUT WILL THEY ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESIDENTS’ WISHES? We’ve heard it all before – listen and then ignore!

Below are some highlights – Please note the flood of weasel words!

Lipshutz:  The issue ‘is so important to the City…sea change in the way we look at the Racecourse precinct and as such it is appropriate that everyone has a right to speak and to address the committee…..there have been so many submissions already…in terms of written submissions….that the community to have a say and that hasn’t happened’. ….it is appropriate by deferring this to another day everyone can have a chance to speak…..I myself have concerns. People have rung me…..parking……I don’t think it’s fair or right that four councillors make the decision……everyone (should have) the opportunity to express their views……special thanks to Cr. Penhalluriack and Cr. Forge…..(they) have given a great deal of thought

HYAMS: Agreed with Lipshutz; also commented that since the agenda went out on Friday and the meeting is on Monday, that not enough time to digest the complexity of the amendment. People haven’t had ‘a chance to consider it and get back to us….Officers have done a lot of work in negotiating with the MRC …it can also be argued that there is a lot more work to be done….one word of caution when you address council….you’ll have three minutes …we could have three hours if everyone speaks for three minutes so I suggest when you address us….stick to planning issues rather than issues about the use of the racecourse…they are issues which raise passions but don’t relate to whether we approve c60 or not. So when you do speak to us I want to hear what people have to say about this particular planning issue

PILLING: quite prudent for such a huge development to take the time to consider …I would like better clarifications of the displacement of car parking….and clarification about the height of the development….

ESAKOFF: Apologised for not being able to attend the original planning meeting but said ‘that it would be very helpful to us to hear directly’ from the people

LIPSHUTZ: ‘everyone’s heard loud and clear the view of the committee’. Lipshutz then stated he would stop people if their points were repeated…’it has as much weight if you say it once as if you say it ten times’….There are many good aspects of the’ amendment….

So Dear Readers, the decision is yours! Do we believe these councillors when they say they really and truly want to hear what people have to say? Do we believe that anything will be achieved by twenty or thirty people voicing the same objections that they put in writing a few months back? Do we believe that this delay has anything to do with ‘democracy’ at Glen Eira, or more to the point, a change of government and the limbo that has thus been created? And what does this say about council’s claims of having already conducted ‘extensive consultation’ on this issue? Sincere, or just plenty more weasel words? Over to you folks!

For any Doubting Thomas we’ve gone back to the stats and looked at cumulative figures over the past decade. The definition supplied by the Community Profile website on housing states:  ‘A dwelling (or residential building) is defined as: A residential building is a building consisting of one or more dwelling units. Residential buildings can be either houses or other residential buildings’.

We repeat: Since Newton took over the reins, development in Glen Eira has increased dramatically. The figures tell their own story. We are simply taking issue with the statement that Glen Eira “has had one of the lowest increases in aggregate dwellings of any Melbourne municipality”.  We haven’t gone through every single council as yet, but the table below reveals that there are AT LEAST 6 other councils with LOWER increases over a ten year period than Glen Eira. We’ll follow up with the rest when we get some more time!

PS: Here are a few more municipalities that we’ve looked up – plus their stats:

Manningham – 5000

Marybrynong – 6383

Moonee Valley – 5919