GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

June 18, 2014

Thank You Council!

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

The future is writ large in the following article from The Leader! Not that we object to residents using their noggins and making a profit. What we most strongly object to is the failure of this administration and its councillors to do the necessary homework in order to ensure that residential streets are given the maximum protection possible. Unlike other councils’ approach to the introduction of the ‘reformed’ residential zones, we remind readers that our glorious council introduced the zones in total secrecy, with zero consultation, and with such indecent haste that there are countless stuff ups that will now take years to remedy. For example:

  • No minimum size lot for subdivision – meaning that developers can subdivide and then subdivide again
  • No dwellings cap on any lot of above average size
  • No attempt to equal permeability requirements that other councils stipulate – ie. 25% compared to up to 40% by others
  • No ‘buffer zones’
  • Dividing streets and neighbours for no logical and accountable reason. For example Mavho St. (pictured below) where there is now a new application in for a 3 storey, 27 unit development and a reduction in visitor car parking. If this property was on the other side of the street and 8 or so houses down from Centre Road, it would be counted as ‘minimal change’. Why the eighth house is designated as minimal change and the 9th house as ‘housing diversity’ boggles the mind. But that’s the planning in Glen Eira!

 

Melbourne homeowners team up to take advantage of law changes and net $5.76m windfall

  • Donna Carton
  • Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
  • June 18, 2014 11:01AM

THREE savvy homeowners joined forces to sell their properties collectively, making upwards of $1 million profit.

They took advantage of recently changed zoning laws and the growing Asian investor interest in Melbourne.

The Bentleigh trio sold their houses in an off-market deal through Savills Australia.

Neighbours at 14, 16, and 18 Bent St sold their adjoining homes to a Chinese developer for $5.76 million, up to $1.8 million more than could have been expected from separate individual sales.

The undisclosed purchaser intends to apply for permission to develop a multi-level apartment building on the combined 1985sq m site.

Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich, who negotiated the sale, said the neighbours could reasonably have expected to fetch $1.3-$1.5 million in separate sales, but the combined property provided a much more valuable development opportunity.

“This was an exceptional result where three astute neighbours realised the opportunity they could create by combining their properties to form an attractive development opportunity and it could not have been a better result,” Mr Heatherich said.

“As far as we know this is the first sale of this type based on an opportunity created by recent residential zoning changes and the current Asian penchant for Australian and particularly Melbourne property.”

Recent zone changes allow for multi-unit development within activity centres.

City of Glen Eira implemented the changes in August with the new ‘Urban Village Policy’ allowing for multi-storey development of up to four levels.

“Glen Eira was the first municipality to implement the zoning changes and with Bentleigh one of the main high density areas in Glen Eira, it was subsequently reclassified as Bentleigh Urban Village,” Mr Heatherich said.

Bent St runs off the busy Centre Rd shopping strip and is near the train station.

PS: here’s the link for the Channel 7 News of today. Please note the mockup of what a four storey building, containing  60 units might look like next to a single storey dwelling – https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/video/watch/24268737/teamwork-pays-in-savvy-land-sale/

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

And here’s the view of countless local streets carved up by whim or officers sitting at a computer and drawing lines on a map.

Untitled

 

 

 

June 15, 2014

Hyams: ‘Lend Me Your Ears’!

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

 

See also: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/hyams-little-temper-tantrums/

 

June 12, 2014

Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion: Silence Is Not Golden!

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

From the minutes –

Crs Esakoff/Lipshutz
1. That Council appoint Fimma Constructions Pty Ltd, ACN 101 232 320 as the contractor under Contract No. 2014.036 Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion New Building including Civil Works and associated Landscape Works and demolition of existing facilities at Duncan Mackinnon Reserve, Murrumbeena for the sum of $8,185,711.67 (GST incl.) in accordance
with the terms tendered.
2. That a Contract be prepared in accordance with the Conditions included in the tender.
3. That the Contracts be executed in an appropriate manner including by affixing of the Council Seal.
4. That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this Meeting.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

Since the public who are forking out the $8 million are once again being kept in the dark like mushrooms, we can only speculate as to what is going on with what is fast becoming the disaster of Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion. Residents deserve to know:

  • Will what is currently standing of the Maxstra work be demolished? If so, what does this do to time lines for completion of the pavilion?
  • How much has Maxstra been paid and is this amount IN ADDITION to the new figure of eight million?
  • Is there more legal argey-bargey going on, and how much is this costing?
  • Why is every single major project under this regime always late, and seemingly always running into problems? What does this say about our decision makers?
  • And, since the decision was ‘carried’ and therefore NOT UNANIMOUS what were the reasons behind the contrary views?
 

June 12, 2014

The Art Of Sophistry

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

Tuesday night’s council meeting was replete with bouts of amnesia, inconsistencies, and some wonderful (unconscious?) irony found in the bombast of Lipshutz and his cronies – these latter examples still to come!

This was evident in the item on Amendment C102 (Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas). Amazingly, not one single councillor referred to the watering down of conditions; not one single councillor mentioned that this was a deferred item from 2010, and not one single councillor provided any explanation as to why what was unacceptable two years ago should now be lauded as wonderful.

Motion to accept moved by Hyams and seconded by Delahunty

HYAMS: started off by saying that there’s ‘a need to update’ policies from ‘time to time’ and this is one of those times. Said that the only contentious issue was the stipulation that heights be consistent with what the current zones dictate. There had been one objection. Argued that it would be a pity if the zones provided protection elsewhere but if here ‘they were disregarded’. Said that there are ‘objectives’ and that if an application ‘basically’ complies with policy and doesn’t cause ‘undue’ ill effects on ‘amenity’ then ‘there is a bit of latitude there’. Said that council isn’t making a decision but sending it off to an ‘independent panel’ and objectors can then present their views to the panel and the report will come back to council for decision.

DELAHUNTY: agreed with Hyams about need for policy so that residents would ‘understand’ what is required and the ‘basis of how we make decisions’. Spoke about ‘measures’ and said that even if the measures ‘aren’t met’ then the application can still meet ‘the objectives of this policy’. This is just part of the ‘deliberate ambiguity that’s built into the policy’ and this allows places like schools to ‘lobby council’. There are other measures which ‘aren’t set in stone’ so it’s ‘wise’ to go onto the next step in sending it off to a panel.

OKOTEL: noted the two objections from private schools and how they were opposed to the height limits and the ‘limiting of set backs’. She agreed with the objectors. Gave an example of a doctor’s surgery opposite her parents’ house which wasn’t taking any more new patients because they were already so busy. Same applied to schools and in order to cater for the increase in population and demand that the best way to go was to ‘build up’ and this would also help people recognise and ‘see a GP practise’ from the street, rather than if it was set back. ‘It wouldn’t be set back with a garden at the front’ so people wouldn’t be able to easily identify that it was a GP practice. Therefore didn’t think that the policy should try and limit heights.

LOBO: said that he’s never been in favour of non-residential uses in residential areas because ‘everything has its time and place’. Noted Regent St application as an example. Said that this ‘was fine 15 years ago’ when population was smaller. Said that the policy has to be ‘rectified’ so that ‘no further damage is created’. Said that council need to ‘look after’ residents since they are the ones ‘who pay the rates’. Didn’t like gyms in streets, bars and that these sorts of establishments ‘shouldn’t be put in the streets’.

ESAKOFF: acknowledged that the policy came in in 1999 so it’s necessary to have a ‘review undertaken’ and that it should be ‘updated’ and to ‘conform’ to the way policies work. She has ‘some empathy’ with the objectors and had ‘concerns’ about ‘restricting the growth of schools’ and also doctors surgeries. These places don’t have a ‘lot of space’ and they can’t ‘go out’ so they ‘have to go up’. Noted that schools are ‘immune to’ council planning processes so the policy only applies to the ‘private school sector’. She didn’t want to ‘restrict’ these schools potential growth but ‘has been assured’ because of how the policy is drafted there is ‘some flexibility’ for these schools to make ‘their case’ so she’s ‘happy to take this to the next level’. Noted that the panel’s report isn’t ‘binding’ and that council can make its own decisions when the advice comes back from the panel.

LIPSHUTZ: said that there needs to be some ‘flexibility in terms of heights’. Lobo’s view about no non-residential uses in residential areas meant that he wasn’t ‘sure’ where you could then put ‘schools, churches’ and that he was ‘assured’ that if schools or churces wanted more than 2 storeys that ‘we would restrict that’. He was also ‘assured’ that these are ‘guidelines’ and ‘flexible’ so since they are ‘flexible’ he supports it.

SOUNNESS: started by saying that people who live in cities want facilities and there are residential areas and non-residential assets. Said that even living in a local street people can wander down to the corner and ‘have a coffee’ and that’s part of living in a city. The amendment is to avoid duplication and update policy according to the new zones and therefore it is very ‘reasonable’. Thought that it was good to have the ‘conversation’ about height because necessary to know what ‘the height might be in an area’. But it’s all relative and in a conversation with someone they spoke about height in relation to ‘tree height’ so if there’s is a bush close by then a ‘two storey height seems enormous’ and if there are huge gums nearby then this would ‘seem tiny’. It all depends ‘on the scale of what’s in the municipality’. And this policy ‘allows this conversation to take place’.

MAGEE: said that because there are schools and churches that ‘makes our residential zones’. Said his place was near schools and doctors and ‘two hospitals’. Change was inevitable and there would always be changes to the planning scheme. Although he doesn’t ‘particularly’ want to live in an industrial area or ‘near a beach’ and he picked where he lives ‘because of the amenity around it’. This was only the ‘first stage’ and where people live is ‘what we make it’. It’s okay to say that schools should only be 2 storeys in residential areas but ‘sometimes’ they do ‘run out of space’ and they can ‘only go up’. Gave examples of packed schools like McKinnon secondary. Repeated that this is only the ‘first stage’ of the process.

PILLING: thought that it was ‘quite reasonable’ to give ‘consideration’ to the area but as he ‘understands’ it, ‘there is nothing’ in the policy to ‘preclude schools going higher’. If there was an application for a ten storey non residential use then ‘I don’t think that’s what we want’. What council wants is ‘some form of uniformity’ and that’s why the current residential zones are ‘so unique’.

HYAMS: said that all they are talking about are schools etc. and not ‘commercial uses’. Council should protect height and also heights in General Residential Zones and Growth Zones. Said that if doctors surgeries wanted to be 3 storeys then there are areas in Glen Eira where they can build to this height.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED – VOTING FOR – HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, SOUNNESS, PILLING, MAGEE, DELAHUNTY.

VOTING AGAINST – OKOTEL, LOBO.

COMMENT

It’s worth asking why have policy at all, if it is ‘flexible’? Does ‘flexibility’ actually provide the ‘certainty’ to residents that this council always claims? Or is the desired ‘flexibility’ simply there to assist developers in building whatever they like, wherever they like? The problem with setting binding standards is that it leaves no wriggle room later on and commits council to a certain form of action. That in itself is anathema to the way this council operates on innumerable issues.

We also direct readers to the Okotel comments and point out the incredible inconsistencies in her logic. On the previous agenda item (9.1- the Ames St application for 13 double storeys) Okotel argued for protection of ‘neighbourhood character’. Five minutes later height limits should go. Surely height is the cornerstone of ‘neighbourhood character’? We are also really bemused by the argument that setbacks shouldn’t apply so that residents can more easily identify what is a doctor’s surgery!

 

 

 

June 11, 2014

Southwick: More Wheeling & Dealing?

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

The following is taken verbatim from Tuesday’s publication of Hansard.

Caulfield Park Conservatory

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—I rise today to raise a matter with the Minister for Environment and Climate Change in regard to the Caulfield Park conservatory. The action I seek is for the minister to conditionally approve the relocation of the historic conservatory to the Rippon Lea estate, subject to the vacant space at Caulfield Park being appropriately utilised as a feature within the park. The conservatory was in fact originally located at Rippon Lea as a greenhouse, but the original burnt down in the 1920s. There has been a great level of community concern and a big local campaign to save the conservatory. Unfortunately the structure has been let to run down over the years, and the Glen Eira City Council surveyed residents to explore options of either developing, demolishing or refurbishing the site known as the conservatory. One of the proposals included a cafe, which was completely rejected by the community.

The building is in worse shape than originally thought, and even though the most preferred option from the community consultation was to refurbish the conservatory, the Glen Eira council has voted to demolish it. I am told the actual cost of refurbishing the conservatory is estimated to be in excess of $250 000, and council has only set aside $100 000 to do the work. As a result, due to the overwhelming community concern and the historical nature of the conservatory, the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) has offered to relocate the structure back to the Rippon Lea estate. I have been informed that the council supports this new approach and is willing to fund the relocation of the conservatory.

I believe this is a good option, as we will still retain the conservatory in the area and in fact return it to its original home. This also opens up the possibility of upgrading the space and better utilising it for local residents, who have been advocating for more seating for the elderly and families in Caulfield Park. I would be prepared to organise a meeting, under the minister’s direction, with council and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries to explore these possibilities and opportunities. It is on these grounds that I ask that the minister approve the relocation of the historic conservatory to the Rippon Lea estate, subject to discussion with the council, and to appropriately upgrade the vacant land and keep it as a unique feature within the park.

Caulfield Park is a great park. As I have said on many occasions, it is the jewel in the crown in our open space in Caulfield, and we are looking at relocating the depot to Booran Reserve and to be able to look at this particular conservatory as one of the key projects. It is certainly a historic building. It has historic significance, as I said, back to the 1920s. To take that building back to its original home at Rippon Lea gardens would be a great opportunity for all, and I ask the minister to consider this matter.

RESPONSE:

Mr R. SMITH (Minister for Environment and Climate Change)—I rise to respond to the members for Caulfield and Seymour. The member for Caulfield raised issues about the relocation of the Caulfield Park Conservatory. As the member representing a municipality that has the lowest amount of public open space in the metropolitan Melbourne I have to say that he has been a great advocate for the good use of the public space that is available. I have asked him to convene a group of people who have an interest in using the open space in his electorate, and he is doing a very good job in making sure that in discussing the moving of the Glen Eira council depot from Caulfield Park to the open space at Booran Road we get the very best outcomes we possibly can. In doing so he will be discussing that issue with a number of sporting clubs and other users in the area. I will certainly be happy to accommodate the meeting he has asked for to ensure we get a good outcome.

 

COMMENT

We note the:

  • alleged council involvement and contributing of funds – all done of course without a formal resolution, nor consultation, nor revealing the costs involved – if even known as yet. Does “council” in this instance mean officers, councillors, or a combination of both? If ‘discussed’, then where is the record of this discussion and who was involved?
  • emphases on discussion with sporting groups
  • what logistic analyses has been done to ensure that the size of Booran Park can in reality accommodate what is now the Caulfield Depot – the size of at least 8 house blocks and this land is only 984 square metres!
  • What road safety analyses has been done to ensure that trucks, etc. leaving Booran Park do not constitute any threat to traffic, pedestrians, cyclists?
  • If this becomes a depot, or even a sporting ground, what happens to those trees originally deemed ‘significant’?

All in all, lots and lots of questions and typically no answers and just more back room wheeling and dealing in secret.

 

 

June 11, 2014

Ho, Ho, Ho – It’s the ‘Silly Season’

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

Item 9.8 featured Xmas/Chanukah decorations. We note at the outset this item probably involved the longest ‘discussion’ of the evening going on for about 20 minutes. Far more than delegations, planning applications, financial reports, Amendments, etc. Good to see that councillors know what deserves top billing! We also remind readers that the razing of the conservatory was voted in on the basis that ‘restoration’ was too expensive and that council had to be frugal with its limited finances!

Lipshutz ‘expanded’ the recommendation to include lighting, Xmas trees and Chanukias in all four libraries, at the town hall and at Gesac. Seconded by Okotel.

LIPSHUTZ: said there was some ‘vexed issues’ about installing both Xmas trees and Chanukias. Stated that this is a ‘largely Christian’ society where ‘Christmas is celebrated’ so it’s ‘appropriate’ to have ‘festive lights’ and a tree. Even people who aren’t religious still ‘celebrate Christmas’. Glen Eira has the largest Jewish population of ‘anywhere in Australia’ and since Chanukah ‘falls around the same time’ as Christmas it’s appropriate that ‘we also recognise that’. Council shouldn’t be just looking at ‘bricks and mortar’ but also how ‘people feel’ and that Council should recognise that there are people who want to ‘celebrate Christmas, celebrate Chanukah’.

OKOTEL: delighted with the motion because she has been ‘envious’ of what other councils such as Stonnington do in comparison to the ‘bare town hall’ that is in Glen Eira and thought that it was ’embarrassing’ that there’s nothing at the town hall here. Even though some people might think of such decorations as ‘trivial’ she doesn’t think so. Having decorations brings ‘hope’ and a feeling of ‘celebration’. Council should ‘help’ and ‘facilitate’ people entering into ‘that festive season’. Decorations are ‘simple’ but it helps people enter ‘into that spirit’.

SOUNNESS: said he was sorry because he thought that they should be ‘doing councillor’ things and not so much about religion which ‘isn’t to my comfort’. Foreshadowed that he would abstain from the vote.

DELAHUNTY: asked anyone that since Lipshutz’s motion covered all the recommendations plus the extra one about Gesac, she wanted to know what this added to the $40,000 cost.

JONES: said he assumed that ‘we would be adding an additional’ Christmas tree and Chanukiah but ‘wasn’t quite sure’ what the answer was.

After some confusion it was decided that this would be an extra $2000 – making it $42,000

DELAHUNTY: said she was in ‘two minds’ on the issue. Was happy with lighting but not with ‘religious icons on state buildings’. Said that what needed to be ‘weighed up’ wasn’t just the money but ‘the value’. Claimed that $42,000 wasn’t a ‘relatively small amount of money’ and what was important was the ‘value that the community could get from that’ and she wasn’t sure that the value was there. Didn’t think that one the one hand councillors could argue about being treated like adults (ie the previous item on the agenda about rate capping) and then turn around and argue that $42,000 was a small amount of money. Can’t support anything but Option A because she thought that’s what would best suit the community. Nothing wrong with having the town hall lit as ‘opposed to religious events’.

MAGEE: started by saying that of the 140,000 residents that each experiences Christmas differently. For some it’s ‘spiritual’, and for others just a holiday. Didn’t see any of the options as ‘particularly religious for myself’. Said he saw this as a ‘multicultural item’ and not a ‘spiritual’ item. Just like Chinese new year and the dragon, it was good to watch but that ‘doesnt mean that I would build one’. Didn’t see the Christmas tree as a ‘religious symbol’ but just a ‘symbol of Christmas’. Even with 20% of the community being Jewish he thought that ‘every single one of them’ would have a different view and for some it would be ‘spiritual’ and for others it ‘would be just a symbol’. Saw this as an opportunity to ‘stop being politically correct’ and ‘just be ourselves’. Saw this as an ‘acknowledgement of the time of year’. Nothing wrong with that.

HYAMS: said that all they’re doing is ‘acknowledging the two largest cultures’ in the community and it’s not only about ‘recognising minorities’ but recognising ‘all cultures’ and most people would be ‘Christian or Jewish’. He knows plenty of people who aren’t religious but still have Christmas trees or Chanukiah at home at this time of year. This would ‘add a lot to the festive feel of the city’. It’s like saying that the City of Melbourne shouldn’t be spending a lot on fireworks but people do ‘get a lot out of it’ and ‘enjoy it’. Same goes for mixing state and religion because that would mean not having Carols in the Park. He goes and doesn’t feel offended by carols that have ‘got a lot to do with a religion that I don’t believe’. It’s ‘all part of being in a multicultural society’. Melbourne city council puts up a chanukiah in Fed Square and so does New York but they have a huge Jewish population. Saw it as ‘acknowledging a multicultural society’.

ESAKOFF: was ‘sitting on the fence’ and she really wanted only lighting and what the motion is, is even more than what Stonnington has got. Said she was ‘hesitating’ to go for all the options. ‘At this stage’ she was more in favour of Option B.

DELAHUNTY then asked about acknowledging the ‘traditional owners of the land’ and the past issue of putting up the aboriginal flag at the town hall.

PILLING: said that council doesn’t have a ‘continual presence’ but only during Reconciliation Week.

DELAHUNTY said that it was before her time, but she was wondering about a request for a report on putting up a flagpole for the aboriginal flag ‘in line with many other councils including Stonnington’. Wanted to know what the ‘cost of that was’.

Again, confusion and Burke said that ‘off the top my head’ he didn’t remember the cost.

Delahunty then asked if this was going to be a yearly cost. Jones said that it would be a once off cost apart from maintenance.

HYAMS then said that according to his memory cost wasn’t the only reason against the aboriginal flag but the question was about flagpoles of the same height as the Australian flag. Burke confirmed this.

PILLING: was in favour of Option A because it ‘wasn’t too costly’

LOBO: said that the Christmas tree ‘has a significance’. Asked ‘why don’t we give the same money to the charities?’ The season is meant to ‘give out things to the poor’ so it should go to charity.

LI8PSHUTZ: said this isn’t only about ‘dollars’ but ‘human capitol’. Council does have parties in the park but it’s not like Christmas and that’s the time when it’s a ‘festive season’ for everyone. Thousands show up for Chanukah in the park and they aren’t all Jewish. ‘It’s summer, it’s warm, it’s Christmas’ and ‘people feel good about it’. So it’s an ‘opportunity’ for council to ‘do something about it’. If it was a continual cost of $42,000 then he wouldn’t be in favour of it, but it’s only a start up cost and then a ‘very small’ maintenance cost and it will ‘go on for years and years’. In Australia there isn’t the ‘separation of church and state’ and ‘we’re not scared of offending’ by ‘having a Christmas tree’ and not scared of offending Muslims by having a Chanukiah, or offending Christians.’We are a multicultural society’ and when people see the Christmas trees, Chanukiah and lights they will ‘recognise it’. It’s important and council spends money on infrastructure and ‘improving our libraries’, streets, but a criticism is given about what council doesn’t do in ‘bringing people together’. It will ‘make people feel good’

 

MOTION PUT and CARRIED: VOTING FOR – LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING, MAGEE

VOTING AGAINST: DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

 

June 9, 2014

Secrecy Versus Transparency!

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

This paragraph featured in our post of March 23rd, 2011 –

We’ve written that secrecy and transparency do not mix. Secrecy invites speculation; it encourages distrust; and it reinforces a siege mentality – all counterproductive. Yet this is the way that this council has been perceived for years. Residents are not viewed as colleagues and/or collaborators in planning, setting visions for the future, or merely partaking in democratic processes. They are viewed as troublesome cash cows that need to be managed, sidelined and ignored whenever the legislation unwittingly allows for such manoeuvres.

Item 9.11 in the current agenda is another case where secrecy rules the roost – the Municipal Emergency Management Plan. For a council which has one of the highest flood risks in the metropolitan area and where hundreds of homes and businesses were inundated by the floods of February 2011 it is frankly unconscionable that the following statement is made by Waite –

A copy of the current version of the Plan is available in the Councillors’ Room for Councillors to view. As it contains personal information, it is not a public document.

There can be no excuse as to why this document is kept under wraps, especially not when it has the potential to impact on countless lives. Residents have every right to know exactly what the ‘changes’ are and how well positioned this council is in order to respond to any kind of large-scale emergency. Resorting to claims of ‘personal information’ simply will not do – and especially not when all of the following councils (to name but a few!) see no problem in publishing their Emergency Plans on their websites!

As always, the focus needs to be on councillors and whether they have the will to ensure that such practices are put to an end.

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-moreland/emergency-management/municipal-emergency-management-plan.html

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Municipal-Emergency-Management-Plan.html

http://www.centralgoldfields.com.au/?id=23510100B6A0B1D9AEE15DBACA25799900168F98

http://www.maroondah.vic.gov.au/MEMP.aspx

http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/council/governance/documents/item/b9ccbf99.aspx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/search_results.php?q=municipal+emergency+plan

http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Services-and-Support/Emergency-Information/Emergency-Information

 

 

June 7, 2014

Amendment C102: Con Job Par Excellence!

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

Apologies for this long post – but it’s important!

Item 9.2 for Tuesday night’s council meeting exemplifies in our view the continued ‘con job’ that this administration foists on residents and probably most councillors. Here are some very illuminating facts:

  1. The bogus Planning Scheme Review of 2010 resolved to review all policies
  2. In June 2012, Amendment C102 first reared its ugly head
  3. GE DEBATES at the time provided the following commentary –

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature another 2 Planning Scheme Amendments. We will concentrate on the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.

Generally when council introduces an amendment the argument is that it is necessary to fix up zoning issues, or that many of the clauses/phrases/wording in the existing planning scheme is repetitious, not clearly expressed, the legislation has changed, etc. etc. Our analysis of the proposed Non-Residential Uses reveals an entirely different picture. Yes, some changes are due to legislation but many represent nothing more than a watering down of previous conditions and thereby providing far more opportunity for developers to set up in residential areas. We have no problem with the position that amenities such as doctor surgeries, vets, etc. should be located where people live. What we do object to is the chipping away at conditions that help safeguard the existing amenity of residents.

Below we feature a table which presents side by side the current clauses and phrases from the existing Planning Scheme and what is proposed. Many of the changes are indeed subtle – just a word here and there – but the ramifications of these changes are immense. Please note that we have not covered everything – just the main concerns such as location, car parking, and protection of trees.

EXISTING POLICY PROPOSED   CHANGES
To encourage the development and location of new non-residential uses in areas   which are compatible with the residential nature of the area and comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

 

Proposed development sites abut a main or secondary road and have vehicular access from a service road or side.   Other locations may only be considered where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be compromised.

 

 

The   proposal be located within easy walking distance of public transport.

 

 

Existing dwelling stock be retained in preference to purpose built facilities.

 

 

Sufficient car parking be provided on-site for all users.

 

 

 

 

 

 

he  standard car parking requirement will only be reduced where the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the area is supported with suitable levels of public car  parking and public transport.

 

The retention of any significant trees or landscape features be a high priority in the design.

 

Where  car parking is in the front setback, a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage be provided.

 

 

 

Where car parking areas abut residential dwellings, an adequate landscape buffer (suggested width of 1.5m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

 

Stormwater runoff directed into garden areas to reduce watering and demand on drainage infrastructure.

 To  encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses, in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

 

 

Encourage the   location of non-residential uses in “preferred locations” including main or secondary roads and on corner sites with vehicular access from a service or side road. Consider other locations where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be unreasonably   compromised.

 

DISAPPEARED   and replaced with: Discourage the location of non-residential uses on local streets within Minimal Change Areas   (as defined in Clause 22.08)

 

Retain existing dwelling stock, where practical, and any associated extensions/alterations maintain or enhance its residential character.

 

To ensure that adequate provision is made for on-site vehicle parking, bicycle parking and (where necessary) drop off/pick up areas for all non-residential uses/s in a safe manner.

Car parking facilities be provided to the side or rear or basement of the premises, unless the use is in a preferred location abutting main or secondary roads (as defined in Clause 21.12) or in   a Housing Diversity Area (as defined in Clause 22.07)

 

Reduced on-site car parking must be supported by a Traffic and Parking Report

 

 

Retain any high priority significant trees  or landscape features within the design where possible.

 

Ensure that where car parking is proposed in the front setback (in limited circumstances where the use is in  a preferred location), a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage must be provided.

 

Where car parking areas abut residential dwelling, an adequate landscape buffer (minimum width of 1.0m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

 

 

DISAPPEARED

At the July 2012 Council meeting an unanimous resolution was passed to DEFER THE AMENDMENT. Here is the what Tang, Hyams, Esakoff, and Lobo stated at the time –

Tang moved that this item be deferred. Esakoff seconded.

TANG: Started off that the two amendments on the agenda came out of the Planning Scheme Review and that for the previous Amendment (rezoning) he was ‘satisfied’ with the ‘strategic’ justification and ‘merit’. Although ‘there may be some strategic merit in the suggestions’ for C102 there are also come ‘concerns’ and Council should be ‘prudent’ in ‘trying to address those concerns before proceeding’. Said that a resident had pointed out the ‘blog’ and that the moderators ‘were certainly very dedicated’. Tang went on to state that he was concerned about the ‘accuracy’ of the blog  and ‘balance of the views expressed’ but in a ‘democratic society’ people are permitted to express their viewpoint. He then went on to state that as a ‘community representative’ he was happy to ‘review’ those views  and if they had support to ‘bring them to council’. Said that he wanted to be 100% ‘satisfied’ about the concerns raised ‘in relation to the watering down of restrictions’….’expansion of the breadth of the policy….’and descriptions…..around significant trees’. ‘Council should consider what else it can do….before proceeding’.

ESAKOFF: Agreed but with ‘slightly different reasons’ to Tang. ‘ I would like some more time to work on this….’

LOBO: ‘it is a good idea to defer this’….’many (of the changes) are in favour of a developer’

HYAMS:  Said he understood the ‘aims in redrafting in making it more streamlined….(claimed he hadn’t read the blog) ‘for some time’ and that he’d come to the conclusion himself that ‘there were concerns with this’ such as putting in Housing Diversity as ‘preferred’ locations. Stated that he would be ‘more comfortable with some further consideration’.

TANG: ‘acknowledged’ that Hyams brought up ‘similar concerns’ to his own.  Said that the only reason he mentioned the blog is that ‘it is so often used ….as a vehicle for hate…spreads innuendo….or inaccurately assesses council’s performance….without checking the veracity of the underlying information’. Went on to state that ‘in this instance….the blog has done a good thing’ in comparing past policy with draft suggestions. ‘That’s fine and in fact very useful in the democratic debate’…..’regardless of how councillors have come to the conclusion I just hope they will take on board concerns’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/the-whiff-of-revolution/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/chip-chip-chipping-away/

So now, AFTER A 2 YEAR DELAY, Amendment C102 makes a comeback! Has it changed? Has it addressed all the concerns that were evident in 2012? Not by a long shot. Admittedly some things have changed as a result of the New Zones – but the basics, such as protecting ‘significant trees’, setbacks, drainage, and many of the other points we raised are still valid, relevant and represent a bonus to applicants and not residents!

That of course raises the very serious question of:

  • Where is corporate memory, and especially the memory of councillors who (pretended?) at the time that they weren’t satisfied with the proposed changes? Since the 2012 and 2014 version are practically identical, and so is the officer’s report (word for word) why did they permit this amendment to be advertised as it stood? And the $64 question – how will they vote? Surely if it wasn’t good enough in 2012, it can’t be good enough now?
  • Or was this all smoke and mirrors – with knowledge of what was to come via the new zones legislation and the 100 metre extension around activity centres for uses without permits? There can be absolutely no excuse for a delay of 2 years from Version 1 to Version 2, when there have hardly been any changes whatsoever except the removal of the car parking measures and objectives.
  • Do the powers that be simply rely on poor memory so that they can ram through whatever accommodates developers rather than doing their jobs of trying their utmost to protect neighbourhood amenity? It would seem so we believe.
  • The councillors ‘excuses’ this coming Tuesday should be a highlight!

Residents and readers also need to take a very, very close look at Amendment C120 (open space levy) and how this has been manipulated. We will comment in detail on this in the coming weeks.

 

June 6, 2014

Agenda Items: More Emasculation?

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is quite literally a ‘doozy’! What stands out clearly is the ceding of more and more power to unelected bureaucrats and removing the ‘influence’ of councillors even further. This has been done via suggested changes to the Planning Delegations. Councillors have never had (unlike other councils) the option of ‘legalised’ ‘call ins’. That is, if one councillor decides that an application should come before council for decision, that option is open to him/her. This does not exist in Glen Eira. What is now up for decision makes the sidelining of councillors even more ‘efficient’. The proposal is that if no more than 3 objections come into an application, then officers may decide. They may also decide if an objector has received a phone call from a planning officer and thereby had the ‘opportunity’ to voice concerns! Even worse is that the power to grant an amended permit for three storeys is now also in the hands of the unelected if they have previously been involved.

Akehurst provides SOME details of other councils’ delegations and how Glen Eira fares in comparison. For example, he cites that Port Phillip requires 15 objections, Stonnington 6 objections. However, what is conveniently omitted in relation to these other councils is the option for a single councillor to insist that the application come before council – ie. even on parking dispensations the Port Phillip delegation states: Non-compliance with residential parking requirements (except that a minor dispensation can be determined by the Manager City Development or Neighbourhood Coordinators unless a councillor requests that the application be determined by Council.

The best line however comes in the conclusion  to his report – Even with the recommended 3 objection limit our delegations would be more conservative than all the above mentioned Councils but our decision making performance would significantly improve. How effective ‘decision making’ is predicated on the number of objections is, of course, unstated and ultimately quite ridiculous.

But there’s even more of totally unsubstantiated and suspect logic. We quote directly from Akehurst’s report –

Attendees at DPC are dropping. Increasingly objectors and even applicants are not attending. This is likely the outcome of town planning rules which are now clearer.

Council also proposes to shorten the ‘lay off period’ over Christmas since this disadvantages the applicant and ‘benefits the objector’. During this time, phone calls may suffice! – On the last dot point, it is proposed that each objector has been spoken to either in person or telephone by a senior planning officer as delegated by the manager (the outcomes of which would be formally recorded on file). The senior officer will repeatedly attempt to contact an objector over a 48 hour period, after which a decision can be made.

This approach would still satisfy a fundamental principle of Glen Eira’s town planning process by allowing objectors an opportunity to elaborate on their objection with the decision maker. This would build on and follow the recent ‘consultation/mediation’ process adopted for applications with 1 objection.

Ironically we also have in this same agenda more evidence of how poorly council informs residents of what is going on in their direct vicinity. As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, the practise of minimal notification whenever many objections are anticipated, is alive and well. Item 9.1 features an application for 13 double storeys in Carnegie. Only 13 properties were notified, 16 notices sent and 44 objections received.

There is much more more that we will be commenting upon in the days ahead. However of real interest is this in camera item

12.2 which relates to the awarding of the contract for 2014.036 Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – New Building, Civil Works and Landscaping.

Number of tenders received Four

Number of evaluation criteria tenders assessed against Three

Estimated contract value $8m

Surely residents deserve some public statement on what is happening at Duncan Mackinnon and why a project that originally was costed at 7 million has blown out to nearly ten million and now another 8 million possibly? And why the years and years of delay?

PS – UNRELATED, BUT WE’VE RECEIVED A PHOTO TAKEN TODAY BY A RESIDENT WHICH REVEALS THE CARNAGE ALREADY UNDERWAY FOR THE CAULFIELD VILLAGE. Location is corner of Bond/Station Streets.

031

 

June 2, 2014

Good Or Bad?

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

Bayside has implemented what the latest bill before parliament proposes – the setting up of a CEO employment committee. How this will ultimately impact on the ‘job for life’ approach taken in Glen Eira is open to debate. We remind readers that since Newton was appointed in 2000 his contract has NEVER BEEN ADVERTISED; the community is not privy to the Key Performance Indicators of the contract, and legal battles have raged periodically.

Below is the Bayside Media Release and a rundown of neighbouring councils and the dates of their CEO appointments.

CEO Employment Matters Committee – Chairperson

Bayside City Council invites applications from suitably qualified persons for appointment to Council’s Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee as Chairperson for an initial term of up to three years with an option to review annually.

It is proposed that the Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee will meet approximately five (5) times per year.  A per meeting remuneration fee is offered with this role.

The Chief Executive Officers Employment Matters Committee will operate as an Advisory Committee to Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.  The key functions and responsibilities of this Committee are:

  • To make recommendations to Council on contractual matters relating to the Chief Executive Officer or the person appointed to act as the Chief Executive Officer including the following:
    • The appointment of the Chief Executive Officer;
    • Remuneration and conditions of appointment of the Chief Executive Officer
    • Any extension of the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer under section 94(4)
  • To conduct performance reviews of the Chief Executive Officer; and
  • To perform any other prescribed functions and responsibilities.

Applications received for the role of Chairperson will be assessed against:

  • Demonstrated human resource management skills, senior business experience and qualifications;
  • Experience in senior management recruitment;
  • Recognised ability in relation to performance management and development of Executive level staff; and
  • Previous experience or facilitation experience working with Executive Governance bodies or Board Members in membership and/or facilitation roles.

Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee Charter (PDF, 902KB)

Source: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/about_the_council/latest_news.htm

Bayside – Adrian Robb – 2008

Port Phillip – Tracey Slatter – 2013

Kingston – John Nevins – 2005

Stonnington – Warren Roberts – 2009

Boroondara – Philip Storer – 2012

Manningham – Joe Carbone – 2012

Monash – Andi Diamond – 2012

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »