Statistics are forever being used to justify certain decisions. In relation to the C60 ‘justification’ we have this sentence from the agenda item: “The resultant differential strategy has led to outcomes under which Glen Eira has had one of the lowest increases in aggregate dwellings of any Melbourne municipality”.

Once again an analysis of ABS statistics reveals a totally different story. The table below derives from each municipality’s ‘Community Profile’ and the data is directly from the ABS website. We’ve taken the housing approval data for the past decade – that is from 2000 until June 30^th 2010. A fascinating picture emerges. Please note that the data represents housing and unit ‘approvals’ by councils. If we concentrate on Glen Eira, then from the time that Newton’s reign began in 2000, development in the municipality has risen by 41.53%. This is in stark contrast to the figures for Port Phillip, Bayside, and Kingston – all of which have effectively REDUCED ( by up to 64% in the case of Port Phillip) their developments over the past decade. Even on raw stats alone, Port Phillip and Bayside have had far fewer developments in 2009/10 than Glen Eira. Check out the table!

We will continue to ‘compare and contrast’ the achievements, protocols, policies, and practices of other councils as opposed to the Glen Eira way of doing things. We will continue to highlight how Glen Eira residents are getting a raw deal when such comparisons are made. We will continue to question the arguments put forward by this council for its reluctance to embrace what many of these other councils view as standard and/or best practice. We will continue to question the motives behind such reactionary ideologies. And we will continue to urge, and if necessary, embarrass until change occurs. 

Several council meetings ago, the issue of Alcohol Free Shopping Strip zones emerged. We reported that Lipshutz’s opposition was based on officers being ‘overworked’ and that the police wouldn’t support it. Funnily enough, our next door neighbours (Kingston) don’t seem to have such worries. This is from their latest media release –

The alcohol free zones will be introduced in two local shopping centres in Centre Road, Clarinda and Rosebank Ave, Clayton South.

From 1 January 2011, residents choosing to ignore the new alcohol bans will risk police fines of $200.

North Ward Councillor, Cr Arthur Athanasopoulos supported the need for alcohol free zones in key locations where problems were occurring.

“The decision to introduce alcohol free zones in these two areas followed extensive community consultation with traders in the area and local schools,” he said. “Many local residents have noticed an increasing trend for people to be drinking outside the bottle shops in these shopping centres which is why Council has taken this stand against public alcohol consumption.”

Kingston has successfully implemented alcohol free zones in other parts of the City, including the Chelsea, Aspendale, Mordialloc and Mentone foreshore areas.

“The introduction of a further alcohol free zone in the City is another way of combating anti social behaviour caused by alcohol consumption,” Cr Athanasopoulos said.

Glen Eira City Council? Not a whisper, or whimper! From Boroondara website –

Public land and liveability in Melbourne

Have your say on the VEAC Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation – submissions close 20 December.

The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council is carrying out an investigation of public land in metropolitan Melbourne. As part of this investigation it is exploring the contribution of public land to liveability in metropolitan Melbourne and the opportunities for enhancing this contribution.

The Discussion Paper for the investigation is now available and submissions are invited.

Do you want to know about the use and ownership of public land and about public open space across metropolitan Melbourne? Are you interested in the contribution of public land to Melbourne’s liveability?

Do you have something to say about Melbourne’s public land – its parks, gardens, foreshores, creeks, rivers, roads, railway reserves, sport complexes, libraries, schools and hospitals?

Download the discussion paper from VEAC or get a copy from our Camberwell or Hawthorn offices or Information Victoria.

Submissions close 20 December 2010.

Public land in Boroondara

Boroondara covers about 6,020 hectares or one per cent of the Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation area. Almost 403 hectares or seven per cent of the municipality is public land.

Read the summary of public land and public open space in Boroondara document.

For more information

• email: Traci Alchin
• phone: Traci Alchin on 9278 4753 

Files

• Public land and open space in Boroondara (pdf, 876.71 KB)

From Stonnington website:

590 Orrong Road: Development Request

The City of Stonnington received a request from Vivas Lend Lease to prepare an Amendment to the Stonnington Planning Scheme to rezone 590 Orrong Road / 4 Osment Street to a Mixed Use Zone, to introduce a Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 2 and an Environmental Audit Overlay over the site.

Stonnington Council deferred consideration of the application by Vivas Lend Lease in October, to ensure community input could occur before any formal consideration on whether the proposed Amendment should proceed to the next stage of formal consultation.

The proposal by Vivas Lend Lease is to redevelop the commercial site for approximately 479 apartments with 730 on-site car spaces and a limited number of small commercial tenancies. The proposal includes seven apartment buildings from 5-16 storeys and a number of 2-3 storey townhouses.

The total site area is 2.5 hectares and it is identified as a ‘large redevelopment site’ in the Stonnington Planning Scheme and a ‘major redevelopment site’ by the State Government. It is located adjacent to Toorak Station and Toorak Park.

Council officers have assessed the material submitted by the applicant. Key areas of concern include:

• The location and height of the proposed buildings;
• The changes to access through and around the site, and to Toorak Railway Station; and
• The impact of the development on the adjoining open space.

Council organised a range of preliminary consultation opportunities including a Public Meeting which attracted over 500 people, two feedback sessions at the Malvern Town Hall, documents and feedback forms available on the website, and displays at the Prahran and Malvern town halls. Information was advertised through the Stonnington Leader and brochures with feedback forms were sent to all owners and occupiers in the areas bounded by Williams Road, Dandenong Road, Kooyong Road and Toorak Road, plus identified stakeholder groups and the applicant.

Amendment Process

If an amendment is exhibited, then a formal consultation process would begin. The community would again be invited to provide input during the formal exhibition period. Input at this stage will assist Council in forming a position to present to an independent Panel. The Panel is appointed to consider and hear submissions from Council, the applicant, and other parties including objectors. The Panel will make recommendations to assist Council in making a final decision. Council’s final decision is then put to the State Planning Minister for final approval.

Council will continue to work with the community and the developer to ensure an appropriate outcome for this important site.

AND FROM THE MEDIA RELEASE:

Mayor, Cr Tim Smith said: “This is a major redevelopment proposal that needs to have extensive community input. 

“Council is keen to ensure our community is fully informed on the proposal and has the opportunity to comment on this matter, which has received significant community interest to date. 

“More than 250 people attended the Council Meeting this week and Council has received hundreds of emails and letters on this matter.”

 He said: “Council will ensure there are a range of opportunities for the community to have a say and find out more about the proposal being made by Vivas Lend Lease – through meetings, the website, documents at the Malvern Town Hall, displays/feedback forms and through written correspondence, which should be in residents’ mail boxes in coming weeks.”

Community Consultation Options – Notified to Residents by Post 

• A Public Meeting will be held on Wednesday 27 October at 7.00pm, at the Malvern Town Hall.
• Prior to the Public Meeting, the community will have two opportunities to drop in, ask questions and provide input to officers and Councillors on this important matter.
  • Monday 25 October from 9.00am to 12 noon at Malvern Town Hall.
  • Tuesday 26 October from 1.30pm to 8.30pm at Malvern Town Hall.

We have spent a large part of today seeking legal opinion as to the claims of ‘conflict of interest’ which are currently sidelining 4 councillors from voting on the C60 Amendment and the Centre of the Racecourse Planning application. Some background first.

The Councillors Racecourse Committee was established as a Special Committee to oversee Council and MRC ‘business’. The major rationale behind this was, as we understand, that since several councillors were trustees, and others were under threat of being ‘winky popped’, that council would not have a quorum in order to carry out its duties. The Special Committee was therefore created with full powers of delegation. Thus it became ‘law’ that four councillors were to determine the future of all matters relating to the Racecourse. That is, according to Glen Eira Council and their way of doing things!

This approach however is certainly questionable, and definitely not universal. Port Phillip City Council in 2008 (following the Winky Pop decision) also created a Special Committee under Section 86 of the Local Government Act to oversee the planning processes of a proposed development in their municipality. In stark contrast to Glen Eira however, their committee comprised:

community representatives, members with planning expertise, and councillor representation. The panel should have an odd number of members for voting purposes, so an appropriate makeup might be two community representatives, two members with planning expertise, and one councillor.

 Fully aware of the Winky Pop decision, the report went on to state: 

It should also be noted that part of the Winky Pop Supreme Court judgement by Justice Kaye reads:

“In determining whether there was prejudgment on behalf of a councillor, it must be borne in mind that councils are democratically elected, and that councillors necessarily carry out political and legislative roles. Accordingly, a councillor is not necessarily disqualified from participating in a decision because the councillor, previously, has held and expressed views on the matter in question.”

3.11. It seems likely that the judgement made about councillor actions in Winky Pop could also be applied to other members of a committee or panel with statutory planning powers.

3.12. Therefore, if a panel was established to decide on the planning application for the Kyme Place site, then people who have fully prejudged the matter should not participate in the voting and decision making process (bearing in mind Justice Kaye’s words that previously holding or expressing views does not automatically constitute prejudgement).

Clearly, the council would want to include high quality community, expert and councillor representation on this panel to decide the planning application. It is likely that this representation would include people who have previously held an opinion or expressed a view.

 These officer recommendations were carried by Council. (23rd June, 2008) 

So why is one Council so restrictive, and another capable of working within the parameters set by the Winky Pop decision, yet still maintaining direct community input and full voting rights for the majority of councillors? Is it really a case of ‘conflict of interest’ and Winky Pop, or merely what Penhalluriack labelled as ‘anti-community and anti-democratic’ – but not from the legislation alone in this case, but its interpretation by certain individuals within Council. 

The legislation covering councillor ‘conflict of interest’ has now been extended and elaborated upon. There are two kinds – ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ conflict of interest. The former largely involves ‘pecuniary’ advantage and the latter, advantage of family and other relationships. In the context of the Racecourse however, we do not believe that trustees have a ‘conflict of interest’. This is based on the fact that:

• Councillor trustees are not paid for their “services” – hence there is no pecuniary interest and since the legislation was amended, hospitality is no longer applicable
• The MRC is technically a ‘not for profit’ organisation and hence the legislation exempts such groups from the conflict of interest provisions, and
• Council does not ‘select’ the trustees – they merely put forward several councillor names. Selection is thus not the province of the Council

Given the above, it is therefore perfectly reasonable to argue that both Magee and Tang are exempt from the ‘conflict of interest’ provisions which would prevent them from participating in the C60 and centre of the racecourse decision making. That leaves at least 7 councillors (and the possibility of  all of them) to partake in the decision making. The need for a quorum is thus fulfilled and the existence of the Racecourse Committee with its delegated powers becomes unnecessary.

At the last council meeting the arguments opposing the abandonment of this Special Committee were all about ‘risk’ – risk from a challenge by the MRC, risk about process, risk about liability. We maintain that the greatest risk to the community lies with allowing a Committee of 4 individuals exercising their delegated powers when there is no legitimate reason for them to do so. The Committee should be disbanded, its delegation powers removed, and the vote taken in a normal council meeting where the vast majority of councillors may present their arguments and vote.

The Agenda Items for the next council meeting (23^rd November) are out and as per usual, make for fascinating reading. Given the recent fiasco over the planning conference for the Caulfield Racecourse centre development, we did a little more digging and have come up with the following table. Please note that all of the 6 items were given the ‘stamp of approval’ by council officers.

We’d like residents to focus on two things:

1. Size of potential development and number of adjoining properties notified
2. Number of objections and how this is inversely proportional to the number of notifications?

We wonder why?!!!!!!!!