GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 21, 2014

Why They Can’t Be Trusted!

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

Please read the following extracts from Item 9.9 of the current agenda (open space levies) very, very carefully. We believe that it shows in spades:

The total incompetence of this council, and
Why they simply cannot be trusted

Continuation of the policy of 25 June 2013 could potentially undermine Amendment C120 in so far as it directs the expenditure of all funds on the provision and capital works improvements to new open space rather than also improving existing open space which will be used by the future population. Councillors have received an independent briefing in relation to this advice.

And the ‘recommendation’ –

Abandons the policy introduced before the 2014 Open Space Strategy entitled ‘Use of Public Open Spaces Contributions Policy’ dated 25 June 2013.

In case people have forgotten what this council policy promised we reiterate –

Council will only spend Public Open Space contributions it receives after 1 July 2013 to acquire and improve land to serve as additional public open space.1 (including the former Glen Huntly Reservoir)

Council will not spend Public Open Space contributions it receives after 1 July 2013 to improve land which is already public open space. (25^th June, 2013)

With much fanfare, beating of the chest, and promise after promise, March 18^th 2014 saw the following resolution (and promise) repeated –

Crs Pilling/Lipshutz

That Council;

Delete the last sentence in section 8.3B of the Strategy “Funds will also need to held for upgrades to existing open space”.
Adopt the Glen Eira Open Space Strategy.
Confirm the existing Policy adopted on 25 June 2013 that “Council will only spend Public Open Space contributions to acquire and improve land to serve as additional public open space”.

So what does all this mean?

You create a strategy, an amendment, and a policy and promise the earth only to discover innumerable errors later on! So instead of amending the strategy and policy, the solution is to renege on the promise made to residents!
That the old system will prevail and that instead of using the accumulated levies exclusviely for the ACQUISITION OF NEW OPEN SPACE, council will redirect this money into more concrete plinths, more pavilion redevelopments and given their past record, a minimum of new open space. Note that only 2 house blocks in Packer Park have been added to open space in the last 14 years – and that occurred because of the huge public outcry. Council’s first option was to sell the bowling green for residential development!
The total incompetence of those responsible for overseeing the open space strategy and the drafting of the amendment. How many more errors will be picked up after the fact before someone is held to account?
Council resolutions, policies, strategies are all totally meaningless. Promises are made and then broken willy nilly.
All credibility and faith in the competence of this council is shot to pieces.

September 20, 2014

Coming To A Street Near You – #4

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

The rush for ‘larger than conventional lots’ in quiet residential streets is gaining momentum. Readers should note the sales pitch that is now standard – ie. ideally ‘zoned’ for ‘density’. From this week’s offerings!

And the accompanying blurb for this Jasper road ‘combo’ reads –

Exciting development opportunity in the Residential Growth Zone

2 adjacent dwellings offered together
Site area of 1,115m2 approx.
Great development opportunity (STCA)
Versatile opportunity for development: boutique apartment block, townhouses, childcare / early learning centre (STCA)
Build either a multi – storey, multi – dwelling development, in the newly zoned ‘Residential Growth Zone’ in the heart of the of McKinnon College Zone
The two adjoining properties are being sold together and provide 1,115m2 of land area (STCA)
Flexible settlement terms available
Surrounded by excellent retail and lifestyle amenities, including the cafe culture of McKinnon village, McKinnon station, schools & parklands
279 & 281 Jasper Road, McKinnon is for sale through an expressions of interest campaign closing Tuesday 21st October at 5pm

Blurb for this one –

bring your vision for prestige development (subject to Council Approval) and build wide to maximise streetfrontage, stand tall to capture views and add prestige to capitalise on an off-Centre, in-Zone address!

PS: We also remind readers that with the new zones that are so ‘developer friendly’, this Council refused to introduce a MINIMUM size for lot subdivision as most other councils have done. What this means is that properties can be subdivided and then subdivided again. A 650sqm block of land can feasibly result in 3 or 4 properties going up and that includes the supposedly ‘protected’ Neighbourhood Residential Zones!!!!!!!!!

September 19, 2014

The Great Unwashed Of Bentleigh, Carnegie……

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

We are becoming increasingly concerned over what, to all intents and purposes, appears to be the social divide that is occurring within the municipality. Whilst Bentleigh, Carnegie, and other areas are allowed to go to the dogs, certain areas appear to have the ‘protected species’ assigned to them – many being in Camden Ward!

The latest agenda features 2 applications that would seem to endorse this view. One is for a 5 storey building of 3 shops and 57 dwelllings in Neerim Road, Carnegie. It is zoned Mixed Use (ie no height limits) and located in the Murrumbeena Neighbourhood Centre. Officers recommended a permit and the waiving of 4 visitor car parking spots.

The second application is Hawthorn Road, North Caulfield. It is zoned Commercial (again no height limits) and is seeking a permit for 6 storeys, shops and 40 dwellings. Both applications are surrounded by other Commercial zones and the General Residential Zone. Yet, officers decided to reject this second application outright and to pass the Neerim Road one.

It should also be borne in mind that council’s approach is often to chop off one floor and a handful of apartments and hence grant approval. This hasn’t been done for the Hawthorn Road application. So whilst the application seems to meet all the planning scheme requirements in terms of zoning, height, and even ‘mass’ it doesn’t get the nod. Instead we find some remarkable statements that are applied to one site, which didn’t enter council’s consciousness on applications in other areas. For example: council now appears worried about setting a precedent! They are also concerned about drainage, when countless applications are passed in Carnegie resulting in basement car park flooding – and this is when this report contains an engineering recommendation that the developer pay for extra drainage. No such additions have appeared in the countless officer reports for these other areas!

Thus we have to ask:

Are parts of Glen Eira being allowed to become part of the ‘great unwashed’?
Is Camden Ward being accorded ‘privileges’ that other areas aren’t? If so, why?

Finally, we’ve uploaded the two zoning maps for these applications and ask residents to ponder the ‘differences’ which results in one application being granted a permit and the other one a rejection by planners. We also wish to state that we are NOT endorsing either application. We make no comment on the quality of the proposed plans. We are simply concentrating on the officer comments and the resulting recommendations.

September 18, 2014

Southwick: Today’s Hansard

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

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—The matter I raise is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, and the action I seek is that the minister adopt the recommendations outlined in the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office report entitled Management and Oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

The report outlines that the trust has not been an effective manager of the reserve and that insufficient attention has been paid to fulfilling the potential for community use of this reserve.

It is important to mention that Caulfield Racecourse is one of most prestigious racecourses in Australia. It brings significant revenue into the state through racing and events. It hosts significant racing events, including the Caulfield Cup and the Caulfield Guineas, and was a training home of the legendary Black Caviar. In addition to a racecourse, the 1949 Crown grant designated the land as being for two other purposes: for public recreation and as a park. It would be fair to say that, despite the efforts of many, the trust has failed to deliver on the recreation and open space benefits to our community, which the report highlights. Without elaborating on the failure by the Labor government to properly administer land swaps and to take up recommendations from previous reviews, we are now in a great position to finally implement a management plan by taking up these recommendation to the benefit of both racing and community use.

Members would have heard me advocate in this place for more community use of the 54 hectares of land. We have seen racecourses, such as Happy Valley Racecourse, also having strong sporting facilities and golf courses in the middle of their reserves. We are perfectly placed to do a similar thing at Caulfield. I place on the record acknowledgement of the efforts of the current Melbourne Racing Club administration, which has demonstrated a willingness to adopt a plan that incorporates better public use of the facility. In 2012 I worked with the club and the City of Glen Eira to deliver a $1.8 million upgrade of the centre, including barbecue and jogging facilities. That project was funded by the racing club to encourage community use of the reserve.

Despite having done all of that, as we have known and as this report highlights, the community does not fully utilise this space because it is hard to get to. Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is desperately calling out for an active space plan to bring people into the centre of the reserve. We could do this through proper community consultation, which this report also suggests. I thank the minister and the current Department of Environment and Primary Industries administration for their commitment to fixing the inherent problems in managing this reserve and the work they have done so far with the trust.

The recommendations of the report include more rigorous oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve; adopting a governance framework consistent with contemporary standards, determining the trust’s responsibilities, powers and obligations; a community engagement strategy that can identify the needs and will ultimately result in a land management strategic plan that contains a clear and measurable outcome for use of Crown land consistent with the grant; and the exploration of alternative management arrangements for the reserve so it can be better placed to meet the needs of the racing and local community into the future.

Ultimately we are looking for the best outcome for all—the best outcome for residents and the community while keeping in mind that it is a racecourse.

I call on the minister to adopt all of these recommendations in this report. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get things right in this unique and valuable space known as the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. I will give the community my undertaking to continue to fight for better community benefit in this great space.

September 17, 2014

Bye, Bye Heritage!

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

The more we dissect Glen Eira Council’s new zoning, the more convinced we become of its total ineptitude. The latest atrocity is the manner in which the zones have been applied in relation to Heritage Overlays. The Planning Scheme contains the following statements in relation to Heritage – whether these overlays be in the equivalent of minimal change, or housing diversity. Here are some quotes –

The policy recognises that some locations in housing diversity areas may be constrained by their heritage significance or local flooding and that this could reduce their development potential.

Recognise that these areas may have a limited capacity for multi-unit development.

Ensure that residential development respects the scale, form and setbacks of buildings on properties affected by the Heritage Overlay and does not compromise heritage values.

Even the State Government’s Practice Note 78, makes it very clear what should be included in Neighbourhood Residential Zones as shown by the following –

So what has our wonderful planning department done and which councillors have ticked off? Large areas that are included in Heritage Overlays have now been zoned as GRZ1 and even worse, RGZ– suitable for 3 & 4 storey developments respectively. The fate of these areas is now sealed. The pink lines in the maps below are the overlay borders for individual heritage overlays. Residents need to start asking how something like this has been allowed to occur?

PS: The following appeared in today’s Moorabbin Leader. Questions need to be answered on this latest use of GRZ3 – ie the Alma Club current zoning.

The advertisement states that this amendment has been ‘prepared’ by Council. If it is indeed a Glen Eira Council instigated amendment, (at the behest of the developer perhaps?) then why wasn’t a formal resolution passed which requested permission from the Minister to advertise?
If done under Section 20(4) then why hasn’t this proposed amendment been listed in any of the Quarterly Reports? Further, if it is a ‘fast track’ amendment, why does it even need to be done ‘secretly’ via this clause of the legislation? What’s the rush – or have plans for large residential developments already been discussed with officers?
If the amendment is the result of the developer going straight to the Minister and requesting the rezoning, then we expect that there should be some public item in the coming agenda. We expect the item to be as per normal – bereft of any real detail!
Has the Alma Club zoning (which council claims all ignorance of until it appeared) become the thin end of the wedge, where large land holdings (often stuck in the middle of minimal change) will now be rezoned to the GRZ3 ‘standards’ – as per the changes to the planning scheme? So much for a ‘neutral translation’ of the old minimal change/housing diversity to the new zones!

September 15, 2014

Our Councillors At Work – #3

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

The following extracts are taken verbatim from the MAV’s (Municipal Association of Victoria) guide to councillors on planning. (Uploaded HERE). Readers need to keep in mind that in Glen Eira:

No councillor is present at Delegated Planning Committee Meetings
One councillor chairs a Planning Conference – rarely do other councillors show up to these.
No minutes or public reports are published from the DPC meetings and for Planning Conferences the officer’s report is lucky to be more than 50 words and is a bullet point summary of ‘objections’.
Councillors have no ratified and hence legal right to application ‘call ins’
Residents can’t speak to planning applications at council meetings
Councillors continue to delegate away all their powers
We strongly suspect that half the time councillors don’t have a clue as to what is going on!

“Planning for the future needs of the community is a challenging and vital councillor responsibility. Planning decisions shape communities and influence the physical environment and quality of life. They have long term consequences and can affect people’s livelihoods and amenity. A councillor needs to understand the important opportunities that the planning system provides to shape the future of the local community.

Councils also have a key role as representatives of the local community to advocate on the community’s behalf, particularly in the assessment of projects of state significance or proposed changes to state policy.

Generally speaking it is the role of councillors to set planning policies and direction, and the role of officers to carry out the administrative functions of the council at the direction of the councillors acting as a collective body.

Councillors have broad and active involvement in the planning system

It’s a good idea to participate in consultation to have a full appreciation of the proposal and the objectors concerns and often councillors can play a useful role in mediating solutions, where all parties are willing.

A councillor has a responsibility to be informed about planning permit applications that are presented to a council meeting for decision. The council planner’s report is essential reading and should be discussed with council colleagues and the council planner well in advance of the meeting so as to have a full understanding of the relevant planning issues and any limits around the decision to be made

A councillor can initiate changes to the existing local policies in the planning scheme and request the development of new policies if required. If you are dissatisfied with the content or operation of an existing policy, discuss the concerns with council colleagues and identify options to improve the effectiveness of the policy with council management. A council resolution may be necessary to give the review or project a priority in the administration’s work program.”

And on the mandatory Planning Scheme Review:

“As the date for the review approaches, councillors should discuss with the planner an appropriate structure and process for the review. It may be appropriate to establish a small working group of councillors to develop a revised draft MSS. The review should involve consultation with stakeholders such as resident groups, government agencies and representatives of professional groups.”

September 13, 2014

Carnegie, Bentleigh, Etc…..Going, Going, Gone!

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

The reality of what’s happening to our neighbourhoods is evident in the following data. In the space of just 9 weeks, there have been planning applications for well over 600 dwellings. Given the current zoning and council’s pro-development stance, combined with VCAT’s endorsements, we estimate that probably 95% of these applications will be rubber stamped. We also suspect that councillors don’t have a clue as to most of these applications!

Featured below are just those multi-unit proposals. We ignore the countless double storey attached that is rampant throughout all areas.

1170 Dandenong Road, Carnegie – 3 storey – 27 units

15 Belsize Avenue, Carnegie – 4 storey – 52 units

93 Truganini Road, Carnegie – 3 storey – 28 units

98 Truganini Road, Carneig – 4 storey – 29 units

401 Neerim Road, Carnegie – 5 storey – ???? units (Your guess is as good as ours!)

254 Jasper Road, McKinnon – 4 storey – 7 units and shops

45 Ulupna Road, Ormond – 3 storey – 11 units

630 North Road, Ormond – 4 storey – 14 units

482 North Road, Ormond – 4 storey – 23 units

269 Grange Road, Ormond – 3 storey – 13 units

2C walsh Street, Ormond – 3 storey – 12 units

85 Robert Street, Bentleigh – 3 storey – (again, your guess is as good as ours!)

75 Patterson Street, Bentleigh – 3 storey – 5 units

2 Tovan Akas Avenue, Bentleigh – 3 storey – 8 units

455 South Road, Bentleigh – 6 storey – 10 units

29 Loranne Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey – 42 units

22 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey – 41 units

24 Mavho Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey – 28 units

150 Tucker Road – 3 storey – 23 units

188 Tucker Road, Bentleigh – 3 storey – 10 units

PS; TO RUB MORE SALT INTO THE WOUNDS HERE IS THE LATEST APPLICATION BY THE MRC FOR THE RACECOURSE!

Use of land for a place of assembly (Outdoor Cinema)

So, what was supposed to be used for racing has now become another money making venture for the MRC. What was supposed to create no noise, will now be blaring out movies at all times presumably of night and day. What was supposed to be the end of the MRC’s manoeuvring according to some councillors is still well and truly alive. And naturally residents are still being kept in the dark as to what occurred at the VCAT mediation regarding the objection to council’s miniscule conditions on balconies and parking for the C60. We’ve learnt that the VCAT member has made an order! When will council divulge whether they’ve caved in again or not?

September 11, 2014

Our Councillors At Work – #2

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

We’ve received a comment from a resident concerning the Penang Street application and think it deserves to be put up as a post for 2 reasons:

So that residents may adjudge for themselves the kind of ‘representation’ they get from their elected members
The total impotence of these councillors and the continual spin that is perpetrated – ie. continually passing the buck onto vcat, the state government, etc. Utter hogwash we say. It is councillors who accepted the new zones; it is councillors who have the power to alter it and it is councillors in the end who are continually failing their constituency in so many areas.

Here’s the comment.

Well, the mayor came to Penang Street to listen ( I use the term loosely) to residents’ concerns about the development at 2-4 Penang Street. He clearly has not read or has chosen to ignore this decision. Made it very clear that traffic considerations would not be taken into account. Just one in a long list of things he said were not Councils’ concern or responsibility (eg drainage which he admitted has not been upgraded to cope with another 2011 incident). Completely dismissive of any prospect of revisiting or even tweaking the current scheme to provide additional protection for residential amenity. Said at least three times that we should keep “the politicians” (ie state representatives and candidates) out of it, notwithstanding that he simultaneously played the powerless Council card (ie it is all the state government’s planning scheme). I have read some of the material on here and thought it must be an exaggeration. But we got the same routine I have read here about consultation in 2002 and 2010, outcomes could have been worse if had consulted, how council has protected us all from unlimited height, blah, blah. Just as well he has resigned from the Greens, there must be a lot of grassroots members regretting campaigning on his behalf. Riding a push bike to the meeting really isn’t enough. Very disappointed by it all – not that I expected his to agree – but his complete dismissiveness of the concerns of those who put him in power was very disheartening.

PS: The Planning Scheme MUST be reviewed every 4 years, and within one year of the acceptance of the Council Plan. The Glen Eira Planning Scheme was last reviewed in 2010, and the Council Plan was last voted on at the Council Meeting of 10th June 2014. Previously it has been voted on at the 11th June 2013 meeting. Throughout this period, no planning review has been undertaken in the public limelight; no documents tabled as to findings of any such (internal) review, and certainly no public consultation.

The consistent and bogus claim by Council that residents were very well informed as to housing policy (ie minimal change and housing diversity) and that ‘extensive consultation’ took place in 2010 is literally laughable. We’ve uploaded here the euphemistically entitled ‘Discussion Paper’ on the Planning Scheme Review of 2010. Readers need to ask themselves several basic questions:

To what extent does this document actually INFORM residents?
To what extend does this document whitewash all the central concerns (ie the totally biased representation of Structure Plans)
Please note the list of ‘policies’ and it should be borne in mind that many of these ‘policies’ date back to neanderthal times and have not been ‘reviewed’ much less updated!

September 10, 2014

Coming To A Street Near You – #3

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

The sheer insanity of the GRZ zoning is evident in the screen dump of Murray Road, McKinnon below. The left hand side of the street is deemed as ‘suitable’ for 3 storey developments. The right hand side of the street is zoned as minimal change. Please note carefully the following:

Even with single storey dwellings huge shadows are already being cast – and it’s winter! What happens when 3 storey dwellings go up? What amount of overshadowing and loss of sunlight will those poor buggers living on the opposite side of the street experience? And what kind of light can neighbours living on the ground floor of a three storey block expect when GRZ1 zoning provides no protection in terms of adequate side, front and rear setbacks?
Note how narrow the street already is, so that 3 cars have difficulty in passing. What kind of landscaping and protection of the environment is possible with 3 storey chicken coops being permitted?
Residents need answers as to why such decisions were endorsed by councillors? What questions did they ask? What information were they given? Did they care?
Councillors must be held to account for accepting zones that were implemented in secret, were devoid of up-t0-date analysis, and which relegated huge swathes of Glen Eira into third world territory.
We repeat once more that other councils saw fit to do their homework (and to consult). For example: Bayside has 8 schedules to the GRZ ZONES; Boroondara has 4; Stonnington has 13; Manningham has 4. All Glen Eira could come up with was 3 – and one of these is exclusively for the rezoned Alma Club land (ie from minimal change to housing diversity and 76 units in a dead end local street!). Such is the woeful governance, transparency and planning that goes on in Glen Eira!

September 9, 2014

Coming To A Street Near You – #2

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

We urge all residents to have a very close look at the zoning map presented below.

It illustrates completely the utter incompetence, indifference, and shoddy planning processes that exemplify this administration and its councillors – the latter who are supposed to set policy, oversee strategic direction and most importantly, represent their constituents when they make decisions. Instead, residents are now paying the price for such shoddy planning and the egos that were so determined to be first cab off the rank when it came to introducing the new zones – without consultation we repeat!

The map focuses on the McKinnon Neighbourhood Centre. We would like residents to ponder the following and then ask the creators of this scheme, and especially the Mayor of the time (Hyams) who was party to the secret ‘negotiations’, to justify and answer the following:

The total inconsistency. If promimity to railway stations is the stated criteria, then why are some streets (ie Hawthorn Grove) zoned minimal change when they are one street away from rail, and other streets that are up to four blocks away are zoned GRZ?
If the argument is that there is a nearby park, then surely it would have made more sense that medium/higher density dwellings go into areas that are served by open space given the planning scheme’s failure to cater for open space requirements in the GRZ and RGZ schedules and council’s appalling record in acquiring open space?
How was this zoning drawn up? Is it concentric, rectangular, or more of a pin the tail on the donkey exercise? Did any officer, or councillor ever walk along these streets and get a ‘feel’ for the neighbourhood? Why can one side of a very, very narrow street (Murrary Road) be designated as minimal change and the opposite side of the street deemed to be general residential zone?
Why should the 12^th house in a street be earmarked as suitable for 3 storey development and the 13^th house be plonked into neighbourhood residential zone?
Why can other councils undertake exhaustive reviews of their Housing Strategies PRIOR to introducing their zones and Glen Eira hasn’t touched theirs since 2000?
How can Hyams and others keep repeating the inane mantra that there was no consultation because the outcomes would have been worse! This argument alone is the most damning indictment of all councillors and the administration. Not only does it reek of arrogance but displays a total disdain for all aspects of democratic process and transparency.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates