GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

July 13, 2023

Bentleigh: Where Is The Transparency?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[2] Comments 

If one counts the number of times that various councillors used the phrase ‘better controls’ or ‘better managed growth’ or ‘better planning’  in terms of the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan, one should conclude that the draft is god’s gift to planning acumen and a truly wonderful improvement for residents. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We do currently have interim controls via a Design & Development Overlay in Bentleigh that will not expire until December 31st, 2024. Whilst Amendment C228 changed the DDO to only include the commercial and mixed use, it begs the question of why the current draft structure plan sees fit to include some residential rezonings in its borders. Surely this flies in the face of Amendment c228? Regardless of this anomaly, the existing DDO still represents a vast improvement on what is currently proposed. It stipulates:

  • Mandatory height controls along all of Centre Road
  • Lower heights in metres for equivalent number of storeys to what is now proposed
  • Far greater setbacks than in the current draft for certain conditions

Here is what the existing DDO consists of:

Readers will see: Nothing above 5 storeys. The current version is up to 8 storeys DISCRETIONARY

To therefore argue that the current draft structure plan will provide ‘better controls’ is beyond belief. Nor is it acceptable to argue that without rear setbacks for commercial sites that are not heritage listed that abutting heritage places will be better protected – as Athanasopolous would like us to believe.

So what has changed in the space of 15 months? Why is council so gung-ho on creating strategies that are far, far worse than what currently exist? What communication has taken place between officers and the department? Were councillors ever present at these meetings, or have they been privy to any of the communications? Why aren’t such communications made public or, at the very least, a report on what has taken place in such meetings?

Even if we accept that population will increase by approx 2000 over the next 15 years, how does this justify the proposed changes? And what guarantee is there that with increased apartments there will be more affordable housing? According to the latest census results, we already have 9+% of dwellings standing vacant across the municipality. Why? Are these properties that are already too expensive? Owned by foreign investors? Land banking until prices rise by developers?

No councillor at Tuesday night’s meeting had the courage to state the bleeding obvious! Zhang went on about how wonderful it was that streets currently zoned as RGZ (4 storeys) would now be reduced to 2 storeys because they are in a heritage overlay. She of course doesn’t mention how many four storey developments already exist in these streets, nor how many sites will be ‘upgraded’ to go from 2 storeys to 3 and 4 storey heights. When these are added up, they far exceed the number of properties that have had a reduction in height! What this also reveals is that the original introduction of the residential zones in 2013 was a disaster. No area under a heritage overlay should have been zoned for 4 storeys. And neither should all those properties that lie in the flood plain (SBO overlay) been zoned for three storeys or even included in the borders of the activity centre. . Of course, this was all ignored by the ‘guru’ of planning (Akehurst) and his complicit councillors!

The machinations and inconsistencies of this planning department continue unabated. There are numerous allusions to a ‘transport and assessment’ study and potential resulting actions. This document has not been made available and we doubt that even councillors have been provided with the opportunity to clap eyes on it. So once again, councillors are forced to make decisions without having all the information at their fingertips.  The inconsistency is that for the Elsternwick structure plan, there was an accompanying traffic report. Why the difference? It simply is not good enough that residents will have all the requisite information only when the formal amendment is advertised. This approach entirely invalidates any attempt at genuine consultation. If other councils such as Port Phillip can publish all their documentation at the first stage of consultation, we see no reason why Glen Eira can’t – except of course to keep the plebs (and councillors?) as ignorant as possible until it is too late.

Much has to change in Glen Eira if this council is to live up to its stated charter of full ‘transparency’ and accountability.

PS: To put some historical perspective onto what’s been happening in Bentleigh, we’ve revisited an important VCAT decision (17th October, 2017) which granted a permit for a 7 storey development in Centre Road.

What’s fascinating about this decision, isn’t so much the outcome, but the arguments presented by the Council rep. The application was refused by council and thus ended up at VCAT. We quote verbatim what council had to say to support its refusal –

It was further put that guidelines relating to setbacks, height and amenity create further impetus to provide a more sensitive transition between the review site and the surrounding residential hinterland. Council put that Objective 5.1.2(a) of the Urban Design Guidelines seeks ‘To ensure the activity centre provides a graduated transition between different building scales and uses’. It was further put that it is Council’s view that the emphasis on the transitional role of buildings at the edge of an activity centre is greater in the Urban Design Guidelines.

·  However, Council put to us that the proposed development is inappropriate at seven storeys because of the limitations imposed on the site due to the adjoining residential hinterland, the provisions of the DDO8 and the height and scale of development on the immediately abutting land.

·  We make the observation that when assessed against broad strategic policies, the site is well located for redevelopment. However, Council put that the proposed development is in conflict with the vision of the DDO8 which establishes a preferred height of 5 storeys.

Council further submitted that the proposed development exceeds the maximum preferred height by 2 storeys and over 5 metres.

fails to perform a transitional function, which will necessarily cause a jarring impact at the edge of the Urban Village.

Source: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/1656.html?context=1;query=centre%20road%20bentleigh;mask_path=au/cases/vic/VCAT

COMMENTS: So, in 2017 council was concerned about ‘transition’ – especially to the residential areas. With the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan this has gone out the window, where there is no problem with a potential 5 storey (and more if exceeding the preferred heights) of ‘transition’. How laughable! Furthermore, council’s preferred maximum height of 5 storeys has also gone out the winder by 2 storeys. That’s what ‘discretionary’ heights can produce!

Appropriate transitions remain relevant in all planning. In Glen Eira and with this draft, this no longer appears to be the case.

 

July 10, 2023

Cade & The Sudden ‘Conversion’?

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

In August last year Cade voted against the Carnegie structure plan. She has also voted against the housing strategy but was absent for the determinative vote. On East Village she voted in favour of mandatory heights. So what has now changed? Why are we suddenly seeing a trend in Cade’s voting that largely supports the admin’s and planning department’s agenda of high rise and more and more development in our activity centres?

Cade’s voting patterns since being elected deputy mayor are very interesting. Together with Athanasopolous and Magee she voted AGAINST the refusal of a permit for an application in Grafton Street Elsternwick. Other interesting voting patterns include:

  • Cade moved the motion for the Bentleigh Structure Plan
  • She voted against reducing the height of one section in the Caulfield South Activity Centre

Admittedly she has voted against various permit applications (ie Bentleigh RSL in Huntley Road) but on all the recent major strategic planning strategies, she has been an ardent supporter – which contrasts strongly with her previous position(s) on these matters. So we have to ask: Could this possibly have anything to do with her election as deputy mayor and earning the princely sum of $59,659 PLUS 9.5% p.a for a grand total of just under $66,000? Or has she undergone some religious ‘conversion’? If so, then she needs to explain this.

Cade’s motion of support for the draft on Tuesday night, was staggering in its deception, the obvious pre-arranged Dorothy Dix questioning of Torres, and failure to disclose the full picture in so many instances – ie the sins of omission! Nor can it be seen as a genuine councillor contribution to the debate when much of Cade’s version of events mirrored precisely what appeared in the July edition of the Glen Eira News –  basically, ‘don’t blame us, it’s all the government’s fault’! This has now become council’s escape clause for their repeated failures and refusal to (1) listen to the community and (2) adhere to sound strategic planning principles that actually enhance and preserve what residents see as vital aspects of residential amenity.

Here is what Cade stated. Please listen carefully.

“The Victorian government sets the agenda………”. True, but there is still plenty of scope within planning scheme for councils to create their own strategies. Approximately 25% of all planning schemes allow councils scope to introduce what they see as necessary for their communities. That’s why heaps of other councils have had structure plans for at least the past 15 years. That’s why other councils have implemented both ESD and WSUD (environment & water) in their planning schemes. Here in Glen Eira we are still waiting for a community infrastructure levy on developers, a car parking levy, or a WSUD policy – despite all being promised in 2016. In short, there is plenty that councils can do if they have the will. Whether or not a council’s proposed strategies will be approved by the Minister down the line is irrelevant at this early stage of structure planning. The focus should be on implementing sound strategic planning in line with community aspirations and which provides overall ‘community benefit’.   There is no ‘community benefit’ in having potentially ten storey buildings overlooking single storey homes in a heritage overlay. Nor is there community benefit in flogging off council owned land for potential ‘mixed use’ development or for social housing. If council was really serious about social housing then it would not have endorsed a policy which seeks a meagre 5% of dwellings as social housing. It would have included a percentage of at least 10=20%! All of the above has nothing whatsoever to do with the government and everything to do with this administration and its lackey, pro-development councillors!

Cade’s question to Torres repeats past practice on the Carnegie/Bentleigh structure plans of several years ago. What happens if the draft isn’t passed Cade asks? Torres’ response once again resorts to straight out fear-mongering when he says: ‘If tonight’s recommendation did not get supported, our structure planning process for Bentleigh would not proceed’!!!!!!!!!! Why not? Why can’t improvements be made, or does council believe everything it sets out is perfect? There is nothing that stops a council from revisiting its drafts (as has happened previously) and ensuring that it is as sound and strategically justified as possible. Furthermore, the issue is not about abandoning the draft. Those councillors who voted against it simply wanted improvement and implied that this was not up to scratch. Given that council still has 18 months to get it right, the suggestion that everything will lapse or be abandoned is outrageous. Nor is it a valid argument to say that the community wants structure plans for ‘better controls’ and so council is providing structure plans. This of course ignores the central question as to whether the final plans do in fact offer ‘better controls’.

Torres then goes even further with the statement that if the motion fails, then the Minister could ‘quite possibly remove those (interim) controls’ from Bentleigh. Fear mongering at its best!!!!! And without a shred to evidence to support this claim. We know of no other instance in planning history where a minister has removed existing interim DDO’s in their entirety prior to the date nominated.

Cade then goes on to a supposed explanation as to why the draft hasn’t included the recommendations of the government’s Urban Design Guidelines. She says that the guidelines are a ‘background document’ and therefore aren’t in the planning scheme – so presumably council can ignore them is the implication. What is not stated is that STRUCTURE PLANS are also considered as background documents and are NOT IN PLANNING SCHEMES either!!!!!!! What does get into planning schemes are the amendments which introduce the Design & Development Overlays. In Glen Eira all of the most important strategic plans are ‘background documents’ –ie East Village structure plan; City PLan, Activity Centre plans; Urban Design Guidelines, etc.

Finally, Cade states that ‘I am not going to talk about building heights and setbacks’ or ‘parking’ because ‘I am sure my fellow councillors will address’ these issues. Really? How on earth can you move a motion to support a structure plan without even mentioning the most important aspects of it, and the most contentious? If you support something, then the onus should be on providing evidence as to why potentially 10 storey developments are appropriate, or why a 5 metre setback (discretionary) is okay when other councils have managed 6 metre setbacks in their major activity centres?  But we guess it is easy to ignore the contentious issues and to simple promulgate more propaganda about everything being in the state’s control!

Cade’s conclusion is equally bizarre when she claims to want to hear from other councillors not only on what they like or dislike about the plan, but what they would ‘propose’ as an ‘alternative’. This is completely out of order since the possibility of an ‘alternative’ motion has already been rejected by Magee. Councillors are debating the motion as it stands and NOT what might be a feasible ‘alternative’.

Cade’s sudden ‘conversion’ is a concern. She is also doing the community a major disservice by simply regurgitating officer reports and presumably being complicit in staged Dorothy Dix questioning of officers only to provide them with the opportunity to further the set agenda. We remind her and our readers that stage managed debates are the antithesis of ‘robust’ discussion and serving the community with original thinking!

 

July 5, 2023

A Resident’s View On Bentleigh Structure Plan

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments 

The following audio is taken from last night’s council meeting where once again the council was split in voting 5 to 4 to send the draft structure plan out for consultation. There were many criticisms of the current draft, plus some fear mongering from certain councillors and the administration. The final vote was – AGAINST: Esakoff, Szmood, Zyngier, Pennicuik. Those who voted FOR were: Cade, Zhang, Athanasopolous, Magee and Parasol. We note that not for the first time, Parasol did not utter a word as to the reasoning behind his vote. He simply put up his hand.

Here is what one resident had to say about the draft and its unbelievable shortcomings:

We will comment more fully on what transpired in discussion on this item in the days ahead.

PS: In the above audio, Torres tried to negate the potential for a ten storey development by referring to the ‘setbacks’. What he doesn’t state is that rear setbacks for commercial dwellings backing on to heritage areas are NOT MANDATORY. They are DISCRETIONARY – and we all know how little control DISCRETIONARY provides!

 

June 30, 2023

Draft Bentleigh Structure Plan

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Transport
[5] Comments 

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting includes our first look at the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan.  The recommendation is to put this document out for public consultation for a period of 6 weeks. We know little about the nature of this consultation, except that it will include: a range of in-person and online opportunities for the community to provide comments, feedback and ask questions. In other words, we anticipate another mock consultation that only achieves the ‘consult’ range rather than the ‘involve’ stage recommended in the IAPP2 ladder for public participation.

Far more depressing are the actual recommendations contained in this draft. A short summary follows:

  • Discretionary heights of up to 8 storeys along Centre Road for non heritage buildings – which means developments could be even higher.
  • Only heritage buildings to have a mandatory 5 storey height limit (17.8 Metres) along Centre road
  • A discretionary 7 storey height directly abutting a two storey heritage overlay along Campbell and other streets
  • The real possibility of a reduction in onsite care parking requirements
  • No mandatory rear site setbacks for developments abutting residential/heritage
  • Discretionary front setbacks for non heritage properties
  • Potential sell-off of council owned land for mixed use development that might include social housing. Please remember that council’s policy as it stands only asks for a 5% component for large developments. Other councils have asked for as much as 20%!
  • Winter solstice considerations only to be taken into account at a measurement of 3.9 metres from the site boundary in side/local streets. How many of these streets have footpaths that are a bare 2.5 metres in width?

Here’s a run down of the proposed heights. CLICK TO ENLARGE THE IMAGE

Readers should note the following:

  • Only those hatched sites (ie with///////markings are heritage listed). Thus all other sites earmarked as 5 storeys could potentially be much higher.
  • The number of residential properties that are currently in NRZ that will have a discretionary 7 or 8 storey building backing onto them – ie Wheatley Road, Campbell street, Smith Street, etc. Clearly a difference of 5 or 6 storeys does not matter to our council planners!

Finally, what’s not shown in the above map are the proposed future rezonings of the residential hinterland.

We urge all readers to carefully consider the published documents and to partake in the upcoming consultation.

 

June 23, 2023

Our Urban Forest Strategy & Progress?

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

Like so many councils, Glen Eira has an Urban Forest Strategy. Yet we really know nothing about the progress of this strategy. We do have an ‘implementation strategy’ which is full of aspirational, motherhood statements, rather than clear and precise plans. As an example here is a screen dump from part of this strategy.

Please note that council’s annual report fails to reveal how many trees were removed. All we are told is the number of new plantings. To the best of our memory, we have yet to see any ‘audit’ of the strategy. If this has been done, then it should be in the public domain!

Nor does the Urban Forest Strategy outline how the disparity in terms of canopy cover between various areas are to be tackled. Yes, there are a few sentences which state the areas with lower tree canopy but nothing is proposed on which areas will become top priority, nor how. Since the adoption of the strategy, no further information has surfaced in regards to this important factor.

By way of contrast, we urge readers to compare Glen Eira with Bayside. In the latter’s current agenda we find lengthy documents for each of their precincts – shown below –

We’ve uploaded the Brighton East document merely as an example.

item_10.5_-_attachment_7_-_draft_urban_forest_precinct_plan_-_brighton_eastDownload

Yet the analysis, and draft actions, are specifically directed to the individual characteristics of this area – even street to street as shown by the included maps.

Finally it is worth reminding readers that Bayside has set a target of 30% tree canopy cover by 2040. Glen Eira has been forced to change its initial target and go up to 22% by 2040 – for a municipality that has close to the greatest loss of tree canopy in the state and definitely the least amount of public open space per capita. When will we see some real action, some real  planning, and some meaningful financial resourcing so that the tree canopy will indeed increase dramatically?

 

May 25, 2023

Elsternwick Forum

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

Last night saw a great turnout  of over 90 residents for the Elsternwick structure plan forum. Also in attendance were: David Southwick, Simone Szmood, David Zyngier, Sam Parasol, Jim Magee. Apologies came from two councillors when first invited (Esakoff and Zhang) and after accepting the invite, Athanasopolous was once again a very, very late apology! His record of ‘no shows’ stands intact!

Residents made their concerns and objections very clear. The same old issues surfaced time and again – the need to protect heritage; the importance of sunlight and avoiding overshadowing; the nonsense of allowing 12 storey buildings next to heritage, or even 4 storey developments behind single storey homes. Traffic congestion and parking was also commented on several times. The lack of open space also featured prominently.

Councillors acknowledged that officers were looking at the draft plan and attempting to make changes in response to community feedback. We will not hold our breath! We anticipate that in all likelihood the final structure plan will simply be a tinkering so that 12 storeys discretionary becomes 9 or 10 storeys discretionary (instead of mandatory) and heritage sites will now drop down to 5 storeys instead of 6 storeys. If this does eventuate, then it does little to address resident concerns!

What has been happening in Elsternwick, and in Glen Eira overall, according to the last two sets of census data, makes it crystal clear, how council’s stated objectives and strategies are nothing more than dismal failures. Please look carefully at the following table which features the Elsternwick data from the 2016 and the 2021 census. We then comment on what this table reveals.

Source:

https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2016/SSC20858

https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/SAL20864

COMMENTS

Here’s what these stats illustrate:

  • Elsternwick, like all of Glen Eira, is continuing to lose its detached housing at an alarming rate. Yet, they are not being replaced by family ‘friendly’ dwellings. Instead we are getting more and more one and two bedroom dog boxes and in Elsternwick a reduction in 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings.
  • Elsternwick is already the densest suburb in all of Glen Eira – 4,207 individuals per hectare. But the question of density is never addressed nor even questioned as to what it does in terms of overall psycho-social health, the need for more and more open space, sunlight etc. Other councils have realised that personal open space is vital, so in their planning schemes they have succeeded in stipulating that balconies should be a minimum of 12 square metres and 2 metres in width. In Glen Eira we are forever stuck with 8 square metres and a width of 1.8 metres. Yes, a small example but it can be done if there’s the will.
  • Council seemingly plucked out of nowhere a figure of 50:50 ratio of public transport transition and to make this happen, intends to reduce (or completely remove) the requirement for onsite parking in certain spots. As far as the 50:50 figure is concerned, we cannot find one bit of evidence to support this. Yet this becomes the ‘standard’ for all future planning throughout Glen Eira (and at one stage it even became 60:40 for the urban renewal south areas before this was abandoned completely.) Looking at the census stats it is obvious that car ownership in Elsternwick is climbing and that there is a continued decline of dwellings without cars throughout Glen Eira as a whole. The message should be clear – ie that removing onsite parking will not force people to use public transport or to forgo owning a car. The number of dwellings continues to climb, whilst the number of dwellings without cars continues to fall.
  • Even in 2016, in a suburb like Elsternwick which has train, tram and bus services only 25% of residents used public transport and 53.6% travelled to work by car. The data for 2021 can be ignored since this was during COVID and many people simply worked from home.

So what’s the take home message from all of the above?  Council has absolutely no power to force developers into building 3 and 4 bedroom homes. They have absolutely no control over ‘affordability’ so even if townhouses and apartments of3 and 4 bedrooms increases to cater for families, the asking price will still remain high and unaffordable for many people. The Housing Strategy wants more townhouses and more dwellings on various sites. Again, no guarantee that this will meet affordability hopes, or that cramming more and more people into an area of 2.6 square km will achieve ‘liveability’.

What’s also important is that the feedback from this forum does rate a comprehensive mention in any ensuing officer’s report. It is simply not good enough that council’s fallback argument is that this was not a council initiated consultation process and therefore can simply waft into the stratoshere and be completely ignored and forgotten.

Finally, what residents want is not the Magee spiel of last night, that the government will not agree to mandatory heights, or other specifications. This may well be correct. But what residents want is to see their councillors fight tooth and nail for them and to put public and outspoken pressure on a state government that is becoming more and more dictatorial in its processes.

 

April 30, 2023

The Draft Budget

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

Council has released its draft 2023/4 budget. Despite a drop in forecast surplus to a mere $3m+, and fraught economic conditions, council is roaring head with a $37M loan so that by the end of the next financial year, residents will find themselves in debt to the tune of $63M!!!!

Much is made of council’s claims about community consultation for the budget.  The claim is as follows:

We have listened to our community and understand their priorities and areas of focus for the draft 2023-24 Budget. This includes investment in maintenance of roads and footpaths, climate response initiatives and service provision (aged care, seniors, youth, family, children, disability, accessibility and pets). (page 54)

When we actually peruse the draft budget the above proves to be nothing more than spin! It raises the question of why even bother spending money on ‘consultation’ when resident views are so regularly ignored!

According to the consultation feedback, we learn that:

The top three categories where participants want Council to increase spending were:

o Maintenance for roads and footpaths

o Climate response initiatives

o Services (aged care, seniors, youth, family, children, disability, accessibility and pets)

The top three categories where participants want Council to reduce spending were:

o Business and community support

o Sport, leisure and recreation

o Climate response initiatives

Council’s response and assumed explanation of how resident views were incorporated into the budget comes with this paragraph –

Council has considered the community’s feedback on reducing spend in certain categories. More participants wanted more spending on climate response initiatives than less expenditure. The proposed budget, for consultation, provides $652k lift in spending for sport, leisure and recreation and $183k less spending for business and community support. (page 60)

The real slap in the face to residents comes with council’s response to the Urban Forest Strategy (UFS) and other sustainability projects. Surely the prime objective of the UFS is to increase our rapidly declining tree canopy. So how does this year’s funding for increased tree planting compare to last year’s budget? Here are the relevant screen dumps from the 2022/3 budget and the current proposals.

The tree planting component has dropped from $1.35M to $827,000. We do not know how many trees have, or will be replaced, nor how much each tree or sapling has increased in price. What is clear is that the number of tree plantings can only decline given this budget allocation. So much for increasing our tree canopy!!!!! Whilst one might argue that increasing maintenance and tree pruning is justified, is it justified to the extent of an extra one million dollars? And does this imply that previous maintenance was found wanting and insufficient?  

Also disturbing is the continual smoke and mirrors throughout the budget. It becomes near impossible to drill down and determine precisely what is proposed to be spent where. This is largely due to the fact that so many departments and services are lumped together without clear differentiation.

On footpaths we get:

In addition, footpaths are funded at $1.92m to ensure the continuation of the critical footpath renewal program, which is identified through Council’s inspection programs. The proposed allocation is based on current data on footpath condition and defects.

Yet in the 2022/3 budget we find the following:

Council’s budget allocation of $2.15m for footpaths ensures the continuation of the critical footpath renewal program, which is identified through Council’s inspection programs. The proposed allocation is based on current data on footpath condition and defects and includes $100k for enhancement of ‘Great Walking Streets’. (Page 154 – 2022/3 budget)

Making things even more clouded is council’s claim that the current capital works program includes $14M carry over from the previous budget. The financial report included in the current agenda tells us that the carry over includes $578,000 for the footpath allocation. Does this therefore mean that the newly proposed $1.92 allocation is really only $1.342M?

We also take issue with the following paragraph that is a verbatim repetition of what was in last year’s budget papers –

The City is substantially developed and while it is experiencing an increase in property numbers, these mainly arise from higher density developments. This impacts on the budget as Council has to deal with the replacement of infrastructure, such as drains, that cannot cope with the higher density. These costs cannot be passed on to the developer and are paid for from rates. The rates received from new dwellings do not offset the significant infrastructure costs.

In the 2016 Planning Scheme Review, the issue of introducing a Development Contributions Levy and a Community Infrastructure Levy was promised by council. Countless other municipalities have such a levy but not Glen Eira which allowed its previous levy to lapse close to a decade ago. It is now 2023 and we are still waiting for council to come up with such a levy in the face of massive development throughout the municipality. It should not take seven plus years to stop subsidising developers!!!!!

Perhaps the simplest way of highlighting what is proposed is to compare the previous budget with the current one. All highlighted red squares in the following images represent a decrease in proposed new capital works spending – apart from the ‘buildings’ component which has sky rocketed.

Finally, we have scoured the budget and been unable to find a single word regarding pensioner rebates on their rates. Readers will remember that this rebate has been reduced year after year so what started at $150 dwindled to a piddling $19 last year. No mention is made of this in the 2023/4 budget so we can reasonably assume that council’s largesse has finally come to a screaming halt. But that has not stopped council from implementing its ‘traditional’ price hikes on child care ($3 per day), rubbish bins ($46 for a 240 Litre bin) GESAC prices, etc. And rates of course have jumped to a 3.5% increase.

In our view budgets should include ‘efficiencies’ – where and how council is saving money. Contractor costs, staff costs, etc continue to climb despite the stated objective of reducing reliance on consultants. Instead all we get in this budget is spin, obfuscation, and a full system go on more and more major projects costing the earth. Surely not what the community consultation feedback wanted?!

 

April 8, 2023

Elsternwick: Community Feedback

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[7] Comments 

Our apologies for this incredibly long post, but its importance we believe justifies the length since it goes to the heart of what constitutes full transparency and accountability and council’s unwillingness to be completely up front with its residents.

In keeping with its recent practice of refusing to publish the full feedback on its consultations, council has released its ‘summary’ on the draft Elsternwick Structure Plan. In the report we find little that would convince us that the presented analyses reveals an accurate and complete picture of what respondents wrote. So why is council insisting on mere ‘summaries’ rather than publishing the full data as it has done on numerous previous occasions. Why is council fighting tooth and nail to refuse FOI access on its bogus claims that requested documents are ‘voluminous’ and meeting the application would entail a severe imposition on council resources? The refusal to allow residents to come to their own conclusions as to the feedback can only lead to the perception that there is much to hide.

The summary report listed in the current agenda consists of 25 pages. Within these pages we find the following frequency of terminology used to report on the outcomes. Words such as ‘several’, ‘many’ and ‘some’ in relation to respondent answers are used without any clear indication of what was actually stated or the nuances and variations between respondent comments. The frequency in relation to respondent comments is:

Several – used 8 times

Many – used 21 times

Some – used 18 times

Another telling example of the inadequacy of the report comes from page 4 –

Many respondents supported protection of the centre’s heritage and were often concerned that increased built form would deteriorate the centre’s heritage value and village feel. Some participants considered the general lowering of permitted building heights to be the appropriate response.

What is the numerical difference between ‘many’ and ‘some’?  Does the differentiation between the ‘many’ and ‘some’ indicate that the ‘many’ were not supportive of a decrease in height limits or that this was simply not mentioned? Did any of the responses really affirm or agree that Elsternwick has a ‘village feel’ or is this simply terminology assigned by the authors of the report?  And how should ‘increased built form’ be interpreted anyway? Does it refer to the paltry set backs? The heights? Their discretionary nature instead of mandatory, or their overshadowing potential? Ultimately such statements are meaningless and certainly open to a multitude of interpretations. Without access to the actual comments, there is no way of telling and according credibility and value to the summary report.

We also have to take issue with the manner that the so called topics are presented and their accompanying tables purporting to reveal the ensuing ‘themes’.  The survey questions focused on topics predetermined by council such as: vision and objectives; heritage; traffic; etc. Accompanying each topic, respondents had the choice of downloading what one can only assume to be information that would provide greater understanding of the topic. We repeat some of the comments we made in an earlier post (See: https://gleneira.blog/2022/11/04/elsternwick-another-shonky-consultation/) –

  • The draft structure plan proposes to allow up to 6 storeys for heritage listed sites along Glen Huntly Road. Not once is this mentioned throughout the document that is supposed to provide respondents with information on this important aspect of the structure plan.
  • Jargon predominates. What on earth does ‘rich materiality’ mean and how would respondents interpret this?
  • Why aren’t we told that the heritage listed church is likely to be surrounded by 12 storey towers? And yet, given the above, we are still meant to believe that council  takes great care to ensure the heritage fabric of Elsternwick is protected

As for the accompanying table on the vision and objective question we find this:

The above table reveals absolutely nothing about the views for or against – ie how many were opposed to the proposed building heights and how many were arguing for increased building heights or perhaps that the proposed heights were appropriate? Simply providing the number of times something was mentioned does nothing to convey what the community thought and how this was expressed in the feedback.

The value of any survey is 100% dependent on the quality of the questions asked. Are the questions open-ended and objective, or written with a specific end in mind? Are they free of ambiguity? Are they mere motherhood statements that would be hard to disagree with? Are respondents provided with enough specific detail to respond meaningfully, or do they have to plough through hundreds upon hundreds of pages in order to glean what is really proposed? How many respondents have actually bothered to do this if details are buried and does this potential lack of knowledge invalidate their answers? Council’s approach has always been to proffer questions that are nothing more than feel good statements, or rhetorical flourishes that no-one would or could disagree with. For example: the significance of heritage and the need for protection.  Yes, residents would agree with the importance of protecting heritage, but does this then lead to the ‘support’ of what is proposed – especially when the mechanisms for achieving this aim are so vague and ill defined.

How many of these surveys are road tested prior to being inflicted on the community? Were there focus groups prior? Were their responses analysed? Did councillors have any say in the creation of these questions? What about the Community Consultation Committee? And who actually drafted the questions?  

And how well has council advertised its surveys and their significance and ramifications? What follow up has council undertaken to analyse what could be considered as poor response rates? Did council really attempt to engender a huge response or the reverse – ie downplay the significance of the consultation? For the Elsternwick Structure Plan we are told that there were articles in the Glen Eira News informing residents of the consultation. The claim is that information was present in the November and December editions. The first screen dump is what appeared in the November issue followed by the December insert that came in on page 9.

The above calls for participation leave a lot to be desired. Instead of ‘facts’ such as: proposed heights; rezoning of some properties; onsite car parking reductions and of course open space/environmental proposals, there is nothing in this first article that would provide residents with a clear vision of what the proposals entail. Nor does the December version elaborate on anything further. And is it sheer coincidence that the inserted photograph only features 2 storeys along Glen Huntly Road, instead of the monsters that are already in existence? Jargon, generalities, and platitudes epitomise the article instead of the transmission of real information. And when will council refrain from such nonsense as calling Elsternwick a ‘village’ when we already have 13 storey buildings going up!!!!

There are countless errors (falsehoods/deceptions?) in much of what council has presented in the accompanying ‘information’ sheets. For example the following image from the Buildings document showing the montage of what a 5 storey height might look like. Even if we accept the accuracy of this image (which we believe is highly suspect) it does not explain why council chose NOT TO DEPICT the opposite side of the street that has a 6 storey discretionary height limit as well as the neighbouring properties further up along this side of Glen Huntly Road that are also under heritage overlays.

Despite all this, council has been forced to reveal that on a ratio of close to 2:1 residents were opposed to most of what the draft structure plan envisioned. What happens now should be of utmost concern to all residents, especially in Elsternwick and Bentleigh. Will councillors insist that this draft goes back to the drawing board? Or will we merely have a minor tinkering around the edges and it is voted through? When something is so strongly opposed then the only solution should be that councillors listen and act in accordance with community sentiment!

 

March 2, 2023

Who Runs The Show?

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

At Tuesday night’s council meeting, residents gained further insight into the ills of Glen Eira Council. Please listen carefully to the following which occurred during item 8.3 on an application for a 4 storey development in a local centre.

Not for the first time are we informed that:

  • Councillors are not provided with enough time to thoroughly digest and analyse information fundamental to their decision making. Hardly surprising when some agendas are well over 1000 pages!
  • It’s also been made clear by some councillors that they have not been provided with important consultant documents prior to making major decisions. Or, if these documents are available, then they are provided at short notice. Hence we argue that this is anything but informed decision making.
  • When it is the CEO who sets the agenda with mayoral ‘consultation’ and there is no genuine notice of motion option in Glen Eira, then we are on a hiding to nothing.
  • The fact that councillors had to ask for all community consultation feedback on the housing strategy, rather than simply the ‘summary’, shows how little information is provided to them as a matter of course. And in response to a public question on Tuesday night, this practice of withholding the raw data is set to continue.

So what does all this mean? Put simply, we have a major problem in local government. Yes, some councillors have been found to be corrupt, and yes, some are bullies, or simply using local councils as stepping stones to far more lucrative careers in parliament. But what of bureaucrats? Who can pull them into line when every aspect of the Local Government Act practically empowers them to act with impunity? As managers and directors, all senior staff are beholden to the CEO for their (continued) contracts and ongoing employment. Councillors have no say in this and nor are they privy to their annual reviews or their Key Performance Indicators. That remains solely in the CEO’s domain. This breeds compliance and cow towing – especially when salaries are in the $230,000+ range.

Admittedly councillors have the right to sack CEO’s – but this can become a very expensive business and invite plenty of negative publicity and more investigations that could reveal other skeletons in the closet.

We have said on numerous occasions that councillors in general are regarded as a necessary evil at worst and as unnecessary appendages at best. Their ideal role is to merely rubber stamp whatever the administrators put before them. In theory, they are supposed to provide oversight; to analyse, question, and be provided with enough information so that their decision making is beyond question. Most importantly, they are meant to work in the interests of the community and to listen to resident views. This is impossible when they are denied access to timely information, or when they are so overloaded that it becomes impossible to do their jobs satisfactorily. We would love to know how many of these councillors even bother to read the hundreds upon hundreds of pages each week or simply rely on the reports from officers.

One article in yesterday’s  Age has officers calling for more constraints to be placed on councillors. In turn, some councillors are seeing this as an attempt to further emasculate councillors and to ensure that all become nothing more than ‘lemmings’ following the lead of the bureaucracy. (See: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/councillors-behaving-badly-calls-for-tougher-penalties-20230228-p5co4y.html ). Which ultimately leads to the question – do we need councillors and do we even need local government when real power is vested in officers and not our community representatives?

 

February 4, 2023

Extra Fresh – Bentleigh

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

For those unfamiliar with this complex, we provide this image –

Sadly, residents will have noticed a for sale sign that has gone up at Extra Fresh Bentleigh. Expressions of interest close in early March. For at least a decade and probably more, this complex has included a café, a grocer, delicatessen, baker, butcher, and fish monger. It always seems to be busy and provides a great alternative to supermarket shopping. What will happen now remains to be seen.

Our guess is that after laying out multi-millions to purchase the property, the new owner will in all likelihood be looking to:

Option 1: keep things as they are and maintain the current tenants with an increase in rent

Option 2: keep a handful of shops at ground floor but decide that greater and immediate profit resides in residential dwellings above. So given the existence of 7 and 8 storeys nearby, this could be the plan. With no permanent structure plan in place, there is no reason to assume that the application could not be even higher.

Another landmark in Bentleigh is thus on the chopping board. We extend our best wishes to the current tenants and will certainly miss them if they have to go.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »