GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

March 6, 2016

How To Waste More Of Our Money!

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

The image presents the location (in yellow) of an application that was recently decided by VCAT. The developer got his 3 storeys and 21 dwellings. Council had refused the original application and they were still opposing amended plans that the developer submitted. This VCAT decision, like so many others, deserves highlighting because:

The entire area is zoned General Residential 1 (GRZ1) which means 3 storeys – yet council stupidly & unbelievably argued that only ONE SIDE OF THE STREET IS SUITABLE FOR 3 STOREYS!
The application met all of the following ‘standards’ – height; permeability; set backs; site coverage
It was a ‘consolidated’ lot size of over 1400 square metres – ‘encouraged’ by the planning scheme
Traffic and parking were deemed acceptable by Council
The ‘consultant’ arguments were diametrically opposed to what the Traffic department has said!

This leads to the central and most important questions:

Why has council wasted ratepayers’ money in going to VCAT?
What’s the point of hiring expensive ‘consultants’ (tender in September 2012 was for $90,000 per annum) when they are totally hamstrung by the ineptitude of the planning scheme?
How much more money has to be wasted before Council stops blaming everyone else and starts doing what it hasn’t done for 14 years – fixing up the planning scheme?

The VCAT member was clearly unimpressed. Here’s some of the judgement –

…the local policy regarding the residential areas of neighbourhood centres expressly encourages the consolidation of sites to promote development opportunities. Thirdly, the maximum height of 10.1m (excluding the lift overrun) of the proposed building is less than the 10.5m maximum building height….

Mr O’Leary (for Council) submitted that the eastern side of Station Avenue principally comprises single and double storey detached dwellings, with some recent two storey contemporary developments. He advised that the Council sees the eastern side of the street as unsuitable for three storey development.

Mr O’Leary correctly highlighted that the purpose of the GRZ includes ‘To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area’. However, the purpose does not refer to respecting the existing character and in this instance there is no neighbourhood character policy or statement of preferred character. The purpose of the GRZ must be read with reference to the policy regarding housing diversity areas.

The Housing Diversity Area Policy is not about respecting the existing neighbourhood character. There is no preferred neighbourhood character nominated for such areas.

I agree with Mr Bromley (for developer) that it is not self-evident that a two storey development would be more appropriate, as suggested by the Council’s Urban Designer. Rather, the general residential zoning, the central location within the neighbourhood centre and the consolidated site suggests that the height should not be restricted to the two storey scale that is allowed in a NRZ.

Furthermore this is not a case where there is any issue of a suitable transition to land in a NRZ. The subject land is central to the neighbourhood centre, close to the commercial heart and not near land in a NRZ.

There is no basis for distinguishing between the eastern and western sides of Station Avenue, at least in terms of the streetscape. They have the same planning controls. As I have already noted, the ‘consolidation of sites to promote development opportunities’ is specifically encouraged for the residential areas of neighbourhood centres.

There is also clear compliance with ResCode Standard B 20 (North-facing windows). To the east, there would be some additional overshadowing in the afternoon, but well within ResCode Standard 21 (Overshadowing open space).

With respect to visual bulk, there are no proposed walls on the boundaries and there is easy compliance with ResCode Standard B17 (Side and rear setbacks), especially at the upper level. The rear part of the building is cut into the land, so that the maximum height at the rear is 8.8-9.3m.

Regarding the statutory requirement for car parking, as set out in clause 52.06, the proposal provides the full complement of spaces for residents but only three spaces, instead of four, for visitors. ..In response to referral of the application, the Council’s traffic engineers accepted the reduction of visitor car spaces. However, Mr O’Leary submitted that there should be four spaces, arguing that the area is already under pressure for on-street parking due to various factors, including commuter and employee parking.

The Council’s traffic engineers have not raised any issues about the traffic implications of the proposal. The traffic report accompanying the application concluded that ‘the site traffic and access location is expected to have minimal impact on the function and safety of the surrounding road network’.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/305.html

March 1, 2016

What A Farce!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

Government, Trustees, and Council should hang their heads in shame for repeatedly turning a blind eye to the continued reprehensible behaviour of the Melbourne Racing Club. We know that the Department, Council, and the Police were inundated with complaints from residents near and far over the recent ‘rave’ concert at the racecourse. And not a word (of course) from Glen Eira City Council nor its trustee representatives.

February 26, 2016

More Lipshutz & Magee Bullshit!

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

VCAT WATCH

There was only one decision in this item – 21-25 Nicholson St., Bentleigh. Council refused a permit and VCAT granted the permit. Here’s what our luminaries had to say on this –

LIPSHUTZ: ‘true to form VCAT knocked it back’. Called this ‘infrastructure stupid’ because both the government and VCAT are ‘allowing infrastructure to grow when there is no infrastructure’. It’s okay that ‘Bentleigh Station is there’ and there is a car park, but when people visit there is ‘insufficient car parking’ and even on a Sunday along Glen Eira road there are ‘traffic jams’ and the government and VCAT ‘allows for high rise development’. Here there is one high rise but ‘what happens’ is that ‘the next one comes along’ and ‘VCAT says because you’ve got one’ the rest are okay and ‘suddenly the whole character of the street changes’. Said that Bent Street is the perfect example of this and ‘this is happening in this street as well’. So there are large developments without infrastructure and ‘not complying with our own policies’. Asks why bother having policy when ‘VCAT simply over-rules us’? Councillors are at ‘the coal face’ and ‘we are the ones who know what is going on’ and VCAT doesn’t.

MAGEE: said this was ‘an important decision by VCAT’. Permit was refused by Manager meaning that it didn’t get to first base of a Delegated Planning Committee or even a Planning Conference but was knocked out straight away. ‘It failed the very first time’ it was looked at. ‘It was fundamentally flawed’ and did not meet planning scheme requirements. ‘Our planning scheme is your planning scheme’ and the ‘Minister actually approved it’ but ‘when it goes to VCAT, VCAT ignore it’. When manager’s refuse it, it is ‘so flawed there is not point’ in going on to a council meeting. So VCAT ‘can come in over the top of 144,000 residents’ and ‘that’s a bloody disgrace’.

COMMENT

Once again the Lipshutz and Magee comments should be revealed for what they are – playing the blame game and utter, unadorned bullshit! Add this to council incompetence, the zoning and the lack of any decent and clear preferred character statements in the planning scheme and it’s no wonder that VCAT overturns so many Council refusals.

For starters, one of councils grounds for refusal was that this site is in the General Residential Zone and therefore doesn’t respect the ‘neighbourhood character’. Well, surprise, surprise! It is NOT in the General Residential Zone as the refusal stated, but in the RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE. Obviously council planners don’t even know their own planning scheme! Here is what the member said on this monumental blooper –

Mr O’Leary advised as a preliminary matter that Council would not pursue its first ground of refusal as clause 32.08 refers to the General Residential Zone that is not applicable and the purposes of the Residential Growth Zone do not refer to existing neighbourhood character.

Then there’s this statement which becomes even more significant when the planning scheme has no preferred character statements for housing diversity, except to say that there will be change expected. Whooppeeee!

The site and adjoining and nearby land are included in the Residential Growth Zone. The purposes of the zone and planning policy encourage the area to be redeveloped more intensively than the prevailing built form, hence the prevailing character of the area is not a constraint.

AND AGAIN –

Neither the purposes of the RGZ or clause 22.05 refer to the character of the neighbourhood as a benchmark for the way a development might fit into the area. The Tribunal has consistently found that land within the Urban Villages is encouraged to be developed more intensively than the prevailing housing that is in garden settings. New development is to be measured by reference to a preferred or emerging character rather than the existing neighbourhood character. The extent of change between the existing and the new built form can be substantial rather than a gently nuanced transition.

Turning to the development before me, the responsible authority accepts the site is unconstrained, is an opportunity site and is close to the core of the urban village. It accepts it is suitable for higher density housing and it has no criticism of the height of the building.

As for arguing for greater setbacks the member simply has to state – No guidance is provided in the schedule to the zone or local policy to support greater setbacks.

Further, since this is such a tree loving council and they want the street tree retained, then why oh why does their Landscape ‘expert’ differ in his opinion – An existing mature street tree has to be removed for the access to the basement. Council opposes its removal. I am not persuaded by Council’s view because its own Park Services department commented that the tree is inconsistent with Council’s street tree strategy and says it is recommended for removal and replacement^…..Furthermore, retaining the tree would require the basement, the access ramp and the ground floor to be redesigned, with uncertain results in terms of dwelling yield, appearance and internal amenity. Requiring this to be done to retain a tree of no particular value, in an area and streetscape where substantial change is encouraged by policy, would be an example of the landscape tail wagging the policy dog. I consider retaining the tree to be an unnecessary constraint on a development that implements many planning objectives.

Maybe if council had some tree protection ‘policy’ in its planning scheme this poor old tree might have survived. But of course, Lipshutz has argued against every move to protect trees in Glen Eira, hasn’t he?

There’s even more on landscaping, that makes one wonder exactly how much preparation and the collection of ‘evidence’ this council is prepared to undertake to have any chance of getting their refusal accepted. Again the member points out –

The basement would be set back 2 metres on the south boundary and 2.55 metres from the other boundaries. The responsible authority thought these setbacks would not be satisfactory because the inground areas could not support taller trees. The landscape officer prefers a 3 metre setback, but his referral advice does not specify the basis for a larger setback.The landscape plan prepared by Memla Pty Ltd proposes Ornamental Pears, Chinese Elms and Crepe Myrtles, all to heights of 5 metres and that more be planted in these setback areas. No evidence was introduced by any party regarding the likelihood that such plantings could not be successful in the setbacks provided……In the absence of any specific directions such as an urban design framework or the like, I consider it is reasonable to accept that buildings in an Urban Village are likely to have less landscaping around building compared to buildings in areas of less intensive development.

On traffic – Clause 22.05 says that development is to take account of established traffic characteristics and not add to identified traffic conflicts. No parties had concerns with traffic generation or congestion and I concur with their views.

On ResCode overshadowing – The responsible authority says the development complies with the standards in clause 55 regarding amenity impacts on neighbours. No walls are proposed on boundaries. It meets the standards regarding daylight to existing windows and solar access for north facing windows. Overshadowing complies with Standard B21 and overlooking of ground level habitable rooms and secluded open space comply with Standard B22. The responsible authority advises the proposed development has a high level of compliance with Standard B17.

On internal amenity – The responsible authority and the Applicant agree the development would provide acceptable amenity for its residents, except for some matters of design detail. All habitable rooms would have access to natural light. All dwellings would be provided with acceptable areas of secluded open space located adjacent to living rooms. Only a small number of dwellings would be located on the south side of the building and so have less solar access than other dwellings. This is acceptable in a larger development.

COMMENT

Lipshutz and Magee really need to find another scapegoat. They also need to ensure that the planning department does not continue to stuff up and should read its own planning scheme before it writes up its grounds for refusal. It should also consider carefully WHY something that meets almost every single ResCode ‘standard’ gets a refusal. Isn’t this simply a waste of ratepayers’ money in order to create the illusion that all council’s problems can be laid at the feet of VCAT?

Most importantly, Lipshutz and Magee need to explain to residents why Glen Eira does not have:

Any preferred character statements for housing diversity areas
Any design overlays for these sites
Any urban design frameworks for its urban villages
Exactly what specific ‘policies’ does Glen Eira have about anything to do with housing diversity areas
Why Glen Eira does not have a Development Contributions Levy
Why Glen Eira does not have a levy imposed on every car parking waiver granted
And why oh why the zones are such a complete disaster!

That is the issue and NOT VCAT – especially in this judgement.

February 25, 2016

Tweedle Dumb & Tweedle Dee & The Demise Of Ethics

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

The prize for the greatest garbage to come out of any councillor’s mouth is a dead tie between Hyams and Lipshutz. In fact, the statements we are reproducing below are not only a damning indictment of these two individuals who will say anything to further their cause, protect their arses, or those of their mates, or simply designed to make some political capital and cement their power base. Logic, consistency, ethics, and concern for residents do not matter one iota in our view.

Prior to the secret and devious introduction of the new zones, which is repeatedly heralded as Glen Eira’s crowning achievement strictly because of its height limits, Hyams proclaimed the following (dates are from our postings)

HYAMS: Said that a problem was that if you set height limits then ‘people will build up to that height and you can’t stop them’ but if you don’t have height limits and let each application be ‘judged on its merits’ then you could get ‘better outcomes’. (6/2/2013 – ie on application for Glen Huntly Road – 6 storeys and 45 dwellings which got a permit from council.)

Then post zones we get this diametrically opposed statement –

Hyams – ‘The new zones are limiting development’ because of the height limits and that ‘anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about’ or ‘is deliberately seeking to mislead you’.(25/9/2014)

Then there’s Lipshutz! On Tuesday night there was a ‘passionate’ defence of ‘consultation’ and how vital it is that people get a say. Yet here is what this same advocate on ‘consultation’ had to say not that long ago –

LIPSHUTZ – ….asking the community but that’s a ‘very cute argument because we all know that when you’ consult with people that ‘the vast majority’ ‘don’t give their view’ and it’s only those people ‘who have a strong view about the issue’. Those who give their view are the voters and it’s those people who ‘will in fact say yes or no’. Going to community consultation means that ‘you will get’ the views of ‘activists and who have strong views’ and the ‘vast silent majority don’t care’. And ‘they don’t care’ because they are ‘satisfied’ about the ‘way council operates’. (on tree register – 24/3/2015)

The hypocrisy, is simply mind boggling. Remember this when you next vote!

February 24, 2016

Skyrail, Politics & A Dysfunctional Council

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
[36] Comments

PS: We’ve put up a comment, but on reflection believe that it should be more prominent and accessible to readers. Here is what we wrote:

The extent to which this entire issue has become a political football where the Liberals bash Labor and Labor bashes the Liberals and the Greens are content to sit back and see the fur fly is reprehensible all round. We have gone back over the Records of Assembly and what is literally quite staggering is that the LXRA October presentation that Delahunty refers to included two prominent ‘apologies’ (ie neither of these councillors attended). They were DELAHUNTY AND OKOTEL.

Admittedly there were subsequent meetings and another ‘presentation’ but the impression (deliberately?) created from both Okotel’s and Delahunty’s comments at council meeting was that both were in attendance. Perhaps quite fitting that it should be one from each side of politics that with their sins of omission and spin seek to further obfuscate and turn this into a political football. As we have repeatedly stated – SHAME UPON THEM ALL

This is a very, very long post – but an important one. We ask all readers to carefully consider the diverse and contradictory statements made here and the underlying politics that colours everything!

The Skyrail petition included: no options provided to residents and ‘sky rail was never presented’ for consultation. Petition asked that consultation be undertaken to ‘determine whether this is the community’s preferred option’ plus including studies on noise and other environmental impacts.

Esakoff moved that the petition be noted and that council supports level crossing removal. Council writes to all MPs and newspapers advocating for no ‘elevated skyrail through our city’ until after there has been ‘full’ consultation and that LXRA reps plus government holds a ‘public forum’ on the issue. Pilling seconded.

ESAKOFF: (reading from a prepared ‘speech’). Said that she would ‘advocate strongly’ for residents about ‘their concern’ for skyrail being ‘the preferred option’ when they ‘and indeed councillors were not aware’ of the option. The concerns were ‘lack of consultation, visual amenity’ and ‘in some cases year round overshadowing’. Said that everyone wanted separation and that council ‘had advocated for a decade or more’ for separation. Stated that skyrail may be cheaper but ‘cheaper is rarely better’. Residents ‘want to be consulted in a meaningful way’ and decisions to come after consultation and not by ‘one on ones’. This is a ‘disaster that has befallen them’. Said she ‘doubts’ the usefulness of the 11 MCGs of open space and ‘linear parks’ which will be ‘narrow strips’ and only suitable for a bike track. Council ‘could’ buy land to ‘incorporate into this’ area but with ratecapping that becomes impossible. There’s also the question of maintenance and what they don’t know is the ‘financial implications’ of this. So if no benefit is provided to residents then the money of ratepayers is ‘better spent’ on ‘meaningful open space’. (applause)

PILLING: said he lives in Murrumbeena and is ‘quite close’ to the proposed skyrail and is ‘well aware of the issue’. He has received over 100 emails from residents and will advocate strongly for residents. ‘We are certainly concerned about the lack of consultation’. Agrees that no decision be made until after consultation and that there has been ‘misinformation’ put out because of the lack of information from the government. People need to be ‘better informed’.

LIPSHUTZ: skyrail could be the best thing ‘since sliced bread’ but he doesn’t know because he hasn’t been given the ‘opportunity’ to find out ‘what the alternatives are’. On the East-West link the government consulted with the community ‘but now they’ve ignored that’. Sky rail ‘might be wonderful but how about telling the community why it’s wonderful?’ and let people tell ‘the government what they actually want’. What we now have is a ‘monstrosity’ where there will be ‘graffiti’, ‘crime’ and 11 MCGs that are ‘useless’ and ‘we’re told as a council’ that it’s ‘wonderful’. Said he read one newspaper article where Andrews didn’t take this to cabinet and decided ‘himself’. Claimed that if he was ‘cynical’ he would wonder why skyrail isn’t in the marginal seats of Bentleigh and instead going into a ‘safe Labor seat’. Consultation ‘is very important’ and that when dealing with big issues like this and ‘people’s lives, people’s property, people’s values’ then ‘it is so important to consult the community’. Said that when council did GESAC they consulted extensively via forums and ‘hearing what the community had to say’. Booran reservoir is the same where ‘we went to the community’ and asked ‘what do you want’. The government didn’t do this and ‘they didn’t even look at any other alternative’. (applause)

MAGEE: the government ‘will decide’ whether to ‘go ahead’ with skyrail. Said there is currently a ‘four week consultation period’ and they will ‘get to see what the results’ from this are. He is ‘more interested in the process’ and whether this is ‘appropriate’ and ‘just’. Council would be in a ‘much stronger position’ if they had plans about what is happening in the ‘corridor’ proposed. Said that Guy wrote to all councils and took away their powers over the land in the corridor so that ‘no control’ over parking. If this hadn’t happened then council and the planning scheme still had these powers then council would have ‘grounds to argue’ and to ‘refuse’ but ‘unfortunately’ all that council can now do is ‘listen to the community and speak on their behalf’. Unfortunately Guy and David Davis who are the ‘champions of this railroad, this skyrail’ are the ones who ‘set it up’. (applause)

OKOTEL: said that previously when there was consultation about grade separation ‘consultation was narrow’ and ‘wasn’t genuine’ and that council were told they could have ‘input’ into what ‘would occur around development’ around the area. Said that was her ‘understanding that we would have the ability’ to have a say. And ‘my understanding this year is that this is no longer the case’. Now they’ve told council that there would be skyrail and that the land would be controlled by the government and that they ‘would hand over maintenance to council’. Given ratecapping it ‘will be more and more difficult’ to maintain these areas. Said that in her time on council has ‘never seen the community so outraged’ about an issue. Thanked residents for their ‘passionate advocacy’ and that without their ‘passionate advocacy we would not be in the position we are to take a strong stance’ to government. Council is ‘your voice’ and they will advocate that ‘things don’t happen without your input’. Said that council put to the rail authority that the ‘rail should go underground’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘point of order’ on accuracy.

PILLING: told Okotel that he didn’t think ‘that was correct’.

DELAHUNTY: said her point of order was about the ‘truthfulness’ of Okotel’s statement in suggesting ‘that council had a position that rail should go under road’. Said that council ‘never had a position’.

OKOTEL: said that her ‘understanding’ was that the majority of councillors thought it should go underground. Went on and asked residents to ‘put your trust in your council that we will do the right thing by you’. (applause)

PILLING: said he was ‘very conscious that what we say to our community is correct’.

SOUNNESS: went through his background on planning and being on the Transport committee rep with other councils and so is very interested in the issue. Concerned that in ’40 to 60 years time’ Melbourne will be double in population but without the necessary infrastructure. Need to ensure that more people ‘move about more efficiently with less impact’. ‘Grade separation’ can make the system ‘more efficient’ but there will be ‘trade offs’. Knows that designers are ‘doing their best’ and so do ‘technicians’ who are ‘passionate about urban design’. Said he did see proposals for ‘rail above’ and other options but ‘why this is the best option, I’m not too sure’. Wants to know why it’s the best option so ‘I can explain to you’. Stated that he ‘appreciates’ the petition and wants to see ‘consultation’ go further but as a council it is not their domain but a ‘state infrastructure matter’. Hoped that information would come out so people would understand why we’re ‘going this way’ so council can ‘adjust’. (applause)

HYAMS: claimed there was ‘no reason’ for council not to accept the motion. Said it was important that ‘we are united’ as a council behind the ‘principles of decent community consultation’. Went on to say that there’s ‘nothing in the motion’ that is not in line with council’s ‘position’. The flood of emails and questions is ‘proof of how poor this consultation process has been’. Stated it should ‘have been done’ like the Liberals did with Ormond where they presented 4 options and then ‘chose the one the people were behind’. On Magee’s earlier point about Guy removing council power ‘that happens with all major’ projects and governments. Here a decision was made ‘and then consulting on it’. On claims that ‘this is a party political campaign’ admitted that ‘the opposition has got behind this’ but that ‘doesn’t mean that the opposition is running the campaign’. Quoted from some recent articles in The Age – Farah Tomazzin, Clay Lucas, and others. Went on to say that as a result of some of the emails he had received he learnt about impacts that he hadn’t thought of before such as the skyrail ‘going through Neighbourhood Character Overlays’ and ‘neighbourhood residential zones’. Asked then that if the project goes through ‘will we be able’ to continue to keep ‘those protections’ on the neighbourhoods since the government is ‘seeking’ to change Plan Melbourne so that there is ‘more development in existing suburbs’. Other impacts are overshadowing and since the tracks will be narrow whether these would comply with Glen Eira’s planning scheme. Thought that residents ‘have a right’ to the forum and that ‘all questions are answered in public’. When something that is ‘so unexpected and so life changing’ is put before people ‘they have the right to a proper consultation’. (applause)

DELAHUNTY: supported the motion and thanked Esakoff and residents and thought it was right that ‘there be a public forum’. ‘Concerned’ that the ‘one on one sessions’ aren’t ‘doing what it is that you want them to do’. Right that the petition be accepted, but her ‘concern’ is that it is ‘constituted on an incorrect premise’ but ‘that we are responsible for that incorrect premise’ – ‘that we didn’t know’. ‘We did know’. Said that council had participated with ‘1500 others’ on ‘what this separation project might look like’ and that was ‘some time last year’. Said that council asked for ‘open space, bike tracks’ like others and in ‘early October’ claimed that council were ‘presented’ with ‘some options and one of those was elevated rail’. ‘I am genuinely sorry for the misinformation that comes out of this council’. Said this wasn’t a ‘surprise’ to her because it was ‘pictured’ quite clearly

OKOTEL: point of order on ‘incorrect information’ in that the ‘option of elevated rail was never presented’.

COMMENTS FROM GALLERY – IE ‘WHO’S TELLING THE TRUTH?’

PILLING: ‘there was a range of options’

DELAHUNTY: said that this presentation was in ‘early October’ and ‘it didn’t quite lay out what we’ve now seen’. Agreed that the process was inadequate and ‘not taken to residents’. Said that ‘they haven’t done a great job at consultation and they need to do better’. Didn’t think that ‘one on one’ was good enough and she supports ‘you being able to turn up here tonight and ask public questions’. But ‘unfortunately most of my councillor colleagues don’t support that’.

HYAMS : point of order and ‘that is false and defamatory’ and asked that Delahunty withdraw.

DELAHUNTY: said that she had in the past moved a motion asking that meeting procedures be changed so that ‘members of the public’ could ‘speak and that was voted down by a majority’ of councillors. ‘So I stand by’ the comment.

Multiple calls for point of order

PILLING: said that this was ‘out of context’

DELAHUNTY: back to LXRA and repeated that she didn’t think ‘their consultation’ processes have been adequate. Also ‘wanted to give an apology for some of the misinformation that has come from council that hasn’t helped your genuine concerns’. ‘Some of that is that we did not know’. Said that in the agenda papers there is a letter from the Minister ‘which again reiterates elevated rail proposals’. ‘Council did not tell you properly, we did not take you with us’ and LXRA ‘didn’t take you with us’. ‘It wasn’t done properly so I support the motion’.

OKOTEL: question to Delahunty. Said she didn’t know about the proposal for skyrail and is ‘surprised that you state you knew’. Question was ‘if you knew why didn’t you say anything earlier?’

DELAHUNTY: ‘We all knew. There was an authority presentation to council’. Said she’s got the ‘presentation package’ and ‘there are pictures of elevated rail’ including ‘some of the ones that are being used now’. Agreed that it ‘might be for a lack of understanding’ why this ‘wasn’t given to the community’.

UPROAR FROM GALLERY

PILLING: admitted that the presentation referred to by Delahunty ‘certainly had pictures and some concepts’ but that they were in the ‘similar position then of not knowing’ what would come out of this. ‘Council genuinely did not know’ of the skyrail option would be the option. ‘We found out on February 7^th the same day as you’. Said that in the presentation there were ‘a lot of things floated’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘we didn’t know it was the final option’ but they knew ‘it was on the table’. Thus the ‘premise of the petition’ is that ‘we were not aware’, ‘we didn’t know that it was an option’. Thought that it was ‘important’ that people realise that ‘we did know that it was an option’. (uproar from gallery)

PILLING: repeated that council knew but ‘did not know that it was going to be the preferred option’.

COMMENT FROM GALLERY – ‘WE DON’T CARE THAT YOU KNEW. WE DIDN’T KNOW’ AND OTHER COMMENTS LIKE ‘WHAT ABOUT INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY’. ‘YOU’RE TERRIBLE ALL OF YOU’.

PILLING: was ‘sure’ that ‘everyone wanted to get to the vote’ on this.

OKOTEL: another question to chair. Referred to the presentation and Pilling’s understanding that council were given 4 options and that ‘you were referring to small pictures’

PILLING: said that ‘the bottom line’ was that like residents ‘council did not know that the skyrail would be the preferred option’.

OKOTEL: asked about the ‘pictures from around the globe’ and whether this was ‘being consulted on rather than the 4 options presented?’

PILLING; ‘as I recall’ they got the same information as the ‘general public’ . ‘We didn’t have any more knowledge’.

SOUNNESS: wanted to answer Okotel. Said that at the presentation the reps were speaking mainly about ‘rail under but they did not rule out rail over’. ‘they showed pictures indicating the potential’ of this. They said ‘it was in the mix’. So from ‘my point of view, we knew’ but most of the attention was on rail under. ‘From my point of view it was an option’.

COMMENTS FROM GALLERY – WHY HAVEN’T YOU ‘SHARED WITH US’? ‘YOU HAVE BEEN DERELICT IN YOUR DUTY’

OKOTEL: another question. About the presentation whether the presentation was showing the ‘elevation of the’ entire train line? (applause)

SOUNNESS: said ‘they didn’t say much about it’ because they were still getting information. ‘My impression’ was that it could have been under, over.

PILLING: they could ‘argue’ about ‘detail and who recollects what’ but the important thing is the petition and councillor support for residents.

ESAKOFF: ‘from my perspective we did not know about skyrail’. They ‘saw a picture of skyrail’ from maybe America, and this ‘was amongst a lot of other pictures’ of grade separation in other places. Skyrail ‘was not put down as an option here’. ‘My recollection is the same as Cr Okotel’s’ and their picture was ‘a bridge and not a 6km skyrail’. (applause) Also if other councillors knew ‘because they had close connections then it should have been more forthcoming’ so they could ‘inform the rest of us’.

DELAHUNTY: asked for withdrawel of comment

ESAKOFF: if it was ‘offensive I’m very happy to withdraw it’. Went on to quote the Government Architect statement of recent times and ‘pre-election policies’. (applause). Said she went to the meetings of LXRA and that it was too small and ‘very little information provided’ just ‘pretty pictures’. Also went to the ‘rally on the weekend’ where ‘residents told their stories’. These residents felt ‘that an actual disaster’ had happened ‘in our community’ ‘similar to’ and earthquake and’ this is how these people are feeling’. At these meetings people weren’t allowed to ‘take photographs’, ‘have representation’. ‘they sit there absolutely stunned’. They feel they have nowhere to go but to put their houses on the market. ‘It is a concern’ for families who have ‘built up a nest egg’ in their homes ‘to have this taken from beneath them’. ‘To hear stories on the weekend – it brought tears to anyone’s eyes’. (applause) So if there is a forum ‘they would have to be moved by these stories’. Said they ‘expected the same process’ as for North Road and McKinnon Road ‘where the community was listened to’. Hoped that the motion would ‘provide the avenue for a real consultation’. Thought that there was ‘still’ some room ‘for movement’ and didn’t think ‘this was signed off as yet’. (applause)

MOTION PUT: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (APPLAUSE)

February 23, 2016

‘A Failure To Communicate – Or Understand?’

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

Tonight’s council meeting was packed to the rafters with residents – most were concerned with Skyrail. A petition was submitted and this engendered an hour’s discussion where councillors voted unanimously to accept the petition, and seek a public forum. Full details will follow tomorrow. However, the following need highlighting:

Disagreement amongst councillors as to whether or not they were briefed by LXRA on the possibility of skyrail well before the official announcement. Acrimonious exchanges between Okotel and Delahunty and overall lapses of memory from Pilling and others.
Political grandstanding all round – ie quite stunning how ‘consultation’ is so important to these councillors now, but not when it comes to most things in Glen Eira like the introduction of the zones!
Lobo officially ‘censured’ with motion moved by Pilling and Okotel to feature on website and all major dailies and the Leader. Labelled a ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, and much more. Lobo was absent from the meeting.
Delahunty motion for public forum on security defeated. Voting against – Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Okotel.
161 public questions submitted. Only 15 ‘representative’ questions read out and answered.
New CEO in attendance. Introduced but made no comments.

February 23, 2016

Boroondara Versus Glen Eira!

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

Whilst Glen Eira is content to spend thousands on its notorious ’11 cent flyer’ of misinformation and outright deceit, thankfully other councils are not cut from the same cloth. Below is the latest Boroondara effort – a letter sent to all residents regarding planning and asking for initial feedback.

February 22, 2016

More Politicking!

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

Opposition wants to work with government to raise cash to avoid skytrains on the Frankston line

February 22, 2016 9:00am

Nicholas Payne Mordialloc Chelsea Leader

STATE Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has urged the State Government to work with him to “save Melbourne’s Riviera” from sky trains.

With decisions on the southern part of the Frankston rail corridor yet to be made, Mr Guy said he was “prepared to work with the government” to raise enough money via new Port of Melbourne legislation to run trains underground.

Mr Guy said talk of underground tunnelling difficulties caused by a high water table in the beachside areas was “not an excuse at all.”

“If you can put a man on the moon, you can dip a level crossing on the Frankston line,” he said.

“When they were building the CityLink tunnels, that was in one of the most geologically unsound areas in Melbourne — and yet we have two enormous tunnels which operate just fine and have for the last 15 years.

“There are absolutely no engineering studies that say it is utterly infeasible to do that.”

There are eight level crossings between Cheltenham and Frankston listed for removal, with work due to get underway in 2018.

Shadow Planning Minister David Davis joined Mr Guy at Edithvale Station last week, along with South Eastern Metropolitan Region MP Inga Peulich, Kingston Central Ward councillor Geoff Gledhill and concerned community members, to discuss the crossing removals.

Mr Guy said the opposition’s offer to work with the State Government was the “first time you’ve seen an opposition do this for decades in Victoria”.

He said if the State Government could “present a sensible piece of legislation” on the Port lease, he would “be happy to tie that sale to putting level crossings underground”.

State Treasurer Tim Pallas told Leader that Mr Guy’s comments were being made from “a position of ignorance”, and the State Government has always been honest about there being no “magical one-size-fits-all solution” to the issue.

“Every crossing removal is different,” Mr Pallas said.

“We’re not coming to a solution with a predetermined position, people can’t rewrite history on this.”

Mr Pallas said the local consultation process will begin this week, with a removal method to be decided by mid-2016 and a “design solution” determined by 2018.

“There’s going to be at least two years of extensive consultation before that construction gets underway,” he said.

When asked the price difference between above and below-ground rail options on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line, the treasurer said “it’s not about cost”.

“I don’t believe there’s a great deal in the cost difference between these arrangements,” Mr Pallas said.

He said it’s more important that the project to be guided by “science and imaginative engineering solutions”.

Edithvale local Elsie Bradshaw, who has lived in the area for more than 45 years, said she was worried after seeing other “failed” examples of above-ground rail lines overseas.

“We definitely do not want this to happen,” Ms Bradshaw said.

“We know there’s going to be noise and a lot of disruption — we’re prepared to put up with that, that’s fine — but not with the rails going up nine or more storeys.”

Community advocate Dorothy Booth, who is also the chairwoman of the Friends of Mentone Station and Gardens, said she was concerned there wouldn’t be enough true consultation on the issue.

“One government organisation talking to another government organisation is not consultation — that’s not going to come up with the best outcome for the community,” Ms Booth said.

“If they persist with this here, they won’t be in government to complete it, because the community won’t stand for it.”

There are now several local petitions against the skyrails gaining support, including one from the Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum and another from the office of Inga Peulich.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/opposition-wants-to-work-with-government-to-raise-cash-to-avoid-skytrains-on-the-frankston-line/news-story/86e0f6bf4df22b9b42ca08fbd5962ec7

February 17, 2016

Dumb Or Complicit? – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[20] Comments

No one is perfect. Mistakes are made –even repeated sometimes. But, (and this is a huge ‘but’) if nothing is learnt from these mistakes and they are allowed to go on and on, then there is something drastically wrong with the people involved and the organisation.

Glen Eira Council, and especially its councillors, are living proof that the pro-development agenda is all that matters. Why? Because this bunch has consistently repeated and repeated the most catastrophic errors in planning and have done absolutely nothing to either learn from their errors, or to address the real culprit – ie the planning scheme. Instead these 9 councillors have been content to play the ‘populist’ game by repeatedly lopping off one or two storeys, or reducing the number of dog boxes in applications. The result? The developer goes to VCAT and gets what he originally wanted. And the main reason? Because of the abysmal, pathetic, planning scheme that has not been properly reviewed or adequately amended since at least 2003. Even worse is that when decision after decision made by councillors is overturned, they have still done nothing. That in our view is not just stupidity, but blatant incompetence and indifference to residents’ plight.

Why can we say this? Because we have gone through every planning decision made by councillors since they were elected in late 2012. In every single decision where councillors lopped off a storey or two, or reduced the numbers of units, and the developer went to VCAT, the developer won! Councillor decisions are therefore not worth the paper they are written on and residents need to hold them accountable for not doing their jobs.

This is the first in a series of decisions we will be presenting. The failure of this administration and its 9 councillors needs to be revealed in all its gory detail. For each decision presented below we also quote from the VCAT judgement highlighting the inadequacy of the planning scheme. Please note that cases involving child care/aged care are not included in this ‘review’ nor are those applications which were refused outright.

COUNCILLOR DECISION #1 – 13/11/2012. 1056-1060 DANDENONG ROAD, CARNEGIE.

The application was for 12 storeys and 173 units. The officer recommendation was to grant a permit with some conditions. Esakoff and Pilling moved the motion for a permit for 8 storeys and 97 dwellings. On the casting vote of the chairman this motion got up. Lobo was absent. Voting for 8 storeys were – Esakoff, Okotel, Hyams and Delahunty. The developer went to VCAT and got his 12 storeys and 173 dwellings. Here is part of what the judgement stated – The review site is in Precinct 1 ‘ Dandenong Road Precinct’ of the Carnegie Urban Village. There are no specific policies for this Precinct in clause 22.05 as they expired in 2007.

It is common ground that 29% of the proposed dwellings (50 in total) rely on ‘borrowed light’. It is also common ground that these are one-bedroom dwellings of the same design and that all are oriented to the east. It is relevant that the council is not opposed to dwellings with bedrooms reliant on ‘borrowed’ light and only contests the proportion of such dwellings in the building

COUNCILLOR DECISION #2 – 27/11/2012 – 127-131 Gardenvale Road, Gardenvale.

The application was for 4 storeys and 12 dwellings. Officers recommended a permit. Delahunty & Lipshutz moved to grant this permit. Hyams, Delahunty, Pilling, Souness, Lipshutz voted in favour of the permit. Lobo was again absent. Amended plans were put in at VCAT and council imposed new conditions. VCAT deleted most of the conditions and stated in part – The planning scheme does not specifically address these detailed urban design matters…

COUNCILLOR DECISION #3 – 5/2/3013 – 483-493 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD,ELSTERNWICK

The application was for 8 storeys and 57 dwellings. Officer recommendation was that a permit be granted. Lipshutz and Sounness moved that a permit be granted for 6 storeys and 45 dwellings. Voting for this motion were: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Pilling and Sounness. The developer went to VCAT and there was ‘mediation’ where council accepted 7 storeys. An objector then appealed to VCAT. The member stated in part – In this context I am satisfied that a seventh floor as accepted by Council is sufficiently consistent with the policies of Council for development in this activity centre and does not result in any significant amenity impact associated with the height through overshadowing or overlooking.

COUNCILLOR DECISION #4 – 5/2/2013 – 687-689 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD, CAULFIELD

Application was for 4 storey and 29 dwellings. Officer recommendation was for a permit with 28 dwellings. Lobo and Delahunty moved to refuse permit. The motion was lost. Pilling and Lipshutz then moved motion for 3 storeys and 25 dwellings. Lipshutz’s argument at the time (since this was the same council meeting as the case above) was and we quote – we’ve just approved a 6 storey building and this is only 4 storey so ‘it’s a little harsh’ to reject and he won’t support the motion to reject. Voting for the 3 storeys were – Lipshutz, Pilling, Magee, Esakoff, Sounness, Hyams. The developer went to VCAT and a permit was granted for 4 storeys and 28 dwellings. Part of the judgement stated – There is nothing within the Housing Diversity Areas referring to preferred maximum heights for built form.

COMMENT

Residents need to be fully aware that just because a permit is refused, or councillors in their grandstanding decide to lop off a storey or two, that is by no means the end of the matter. Our analysis reveals time and time again how VCAT decisions are made on the basis of what the planning scheme does not contain. We repeat –

No structure plans
No decent Design and Development Overlays
No Urban Design Frameworks worthy of that name
No preferred character statements for housing diversity
No development contributions levy
No review of flood areas
No parking precinct plans

And those responsible for this failure? Councillors – since they have the power to insist on reviews and ordering the pen pushers to come up with amendments that would plug many of the current gaps in the scheme. Instead, they continue to pretend that removing a storey is all they can do! This is either sheer stupidity or complicity!

February 17, 2016