GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

January 23, 2014

Caulfield Park Trees

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

The latest missive from Friends of Caulfield Park –

Dear Friend of Caulfield Park,

Happy New Year!

You will have seen that this week the Council has started to work on ovals 3 & 4 in earnest.

Last Monday, at the start of the week of over 40 degree heat, Council chose to relocate the trees that they had made so much political capital out of ‘saving’.

Whilst we are sure the contractors for the removal did their best, this was an absurd thing to do as no real work took place at the site until this Tuesday. It was clear last week that this week would have been much cooler and a thinking person would have put back the move 7 days to this Monday, (especially as the relocation of the trees only took a couple of hours).

Early last week, as soon as we discovered the Council’s folly, we sent an urgent email to Paul Burke and when there was no reply by the next day, to the CEO Andrew Newton.

We asked:

why was the relocation not rescheduled to a later date when it was cooler,
what steps were being taken to help the clearly stressed trees to survive
to affirm that no further relocations or removals would be needed.

On Thursday afternoon, four days after the Monday relocations, we were finally advised by phone that both Messrs Newton and Burke were on vacation. It is shame that there was no-one able to respond in their absence. It seems that the Council was without leadership over the Festive Season.

We then emailed the mayor, Neil Pilling, who replied that he would let us know what was happening by this Monday and that Council had been busy dealing with people suffering from the extreme heat. That is as it should be, but the parks maintenance crew would hardly have been involved in caring for elderly and vulnerable people!

On Monday the mayor advised that the tree relocation had been scheduled for that Monday, that the relocated trees were now being watered three times a day, and that there were no plans to relocate or cut down any further trees in association with the oval redevelopment. There was no explanation why there had been no attempt to reschedule the relocations of the trees.

As far as we can tell, from Friday onward there has indeed been a program to save the trees by regular watering. However, of the 12 trees moved, 3 (2 of which were larger Eucalypts) look as if they are very likely to die, and after such inappropriate timing in terms of the heat, it is possible that more will follow so that the only trees that have been ‘saved’ were the recently planted saplings.

What can one say about a Council that never admits to error, and which therefore never says ‘Sorry’?

We are continuing to monitor the work and will keep you posted of any further developments.

Best regards,
Spike Cramphorn
Secretary

January 22, 2014

A Fishing Expedition At Our Expense!

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

Glen Eira Council spares no expense in pursuit of Frank Penhalluriack

Andrea Kellett
January 22, 2014 4:32PM

LAWYERS for Glen Eira Council have embarked on a massive hunt for witnesses in their criminal court case against former councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Melbourne Magistrates’ Court this morning heard council lawyers subpoenaed 27 organisations in December ahead of a court battle due to start in March.

Tony Burns, for Glen Eira Council, said council lawyers were looking to “ascertain account holders so further witnesses can be identified”.

The list includes banks, taxi companies, power companies the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, Victoria Police and even entertainment company Blockbuster Australia.

The council has charged Mr Penhalluriack, his company K.I Penhalluriack Nominees Pty Ltd and former tenant Tomer Rabba with breaching the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

It alleges they ran an illegal rooming house from a rental property owned by K.I Penhalluriack Nominees Pty Ltd on Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield, between May and June 2012.

All have pleaded not guilty and are due to battle it out in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in March.

Council lawyers are searching for a man known only as “Brent”, who is alleged to have had a crucial discussion with a council building inspector at the Hawthorn Rd rental property.

That discussion allegedly relates to how many people were staying at the property.

Tony Burns, for Glen Eira Council, told this morning’s special mention that the subpoenas had produced a “large volume of documents” in the search for witnesses.

Mr Penhalluriack maintained outside court that the council is wasting ratepayers’ money pursuing him, and has hired a QC to represent him.

Ratepayers already copped an $11,800 legal bill in November after a crucial omission by council lawyers on day one of the case.

The council was ordered to pay defence teams’ costs for their wasted appearance after the council’s legal team did not give adequate notice of crucial witness evidence.

The contest is due to start March 3.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/central/glen-eira-council-spares-no-expense-in-pursuit-of-frank-penhalluriack/story-fngnvlpt-1226807721547

January 22, 2014

Stepping Over The Line?

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

Source: http://geckograss.com.au/case_studies/cs_shire_councils/cs_shire_glen_eira_general

January 20, 2014

$28 Million Versus Peanuts!

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

City of Stonnington aims to create more open space

Date:January 20, 2014

Carolyn Webb

The City of Stonnington is flush with nightclubs, shops and socialites. What it doesn’t have a lot of, is parks. And so it has set out to acquire some.

Council has launched a $200,000 feasibility study and is test drilling this week to explore turning Cato Street car park in Prahran into a park.

But parking officers shouldn’t weep just yet or greenies rejoice – the council plans to move the car park under the park, which could increase the number of parking spaces from the current 400.

Mayor Adrian Stubbs said the car park may have to be at least two levels deep to make it viable.

The cost would be ”millions” but council will wait until the feasibility study’s report comes out in May. Council could finance it or seek private, federal, or, in an election year, state government funding.

Cr Stubbs would like an underground car park to offer shoppers the first two hours free, and sees the park as a village square, flanked by cafes and shops as well as the current supermarkets.

He said it would be a boon to locals. ”It gives residents a place to congregate, socialise. You’d see mums walking with their prams, it’s a place to engage in sporting activity, it’s a place just to sit and think. Would you rather have asphalt, or trees and grass? I’d rather have trees and grass.”

The move came from concerns that of Stonnington’s 26 square kilometres of land, only 6.7 per cent is public open space. It is the second-lowest ratio after Glen Eira at 4.5 per cent, and compares to an average 17.9 per cent in metropolitan Melbourne.

Cr Stubbs said because it was so ”mammothly behind” the council ”needs to be creative” to increase the percentage. It has identified 450 sites for investigation, including taking a 100-space car park in Edsall Street, Malvern, underground, if Cato Street proved successful. Cato Street and Edsall Street car parks are both council-owned.

Stonnington also has a $28.1 million reserve fund for 2013-2014 alone for the purchase of open space, raised from developers who subdivide property having to contribute to council 5 per cent of the land’s unimproved capital value towards open space, if they don’t contribute actual open space. Since 2007 the fund has purchased six properties, many adjoining parks, five of them worth more than $1 million, says Cr Stubbs.

Council has also applied for an acquisition overlay for vacant privately owned land in Carters Street, Toorak, and for vacant factories between Bangs Street and Clifton Street, Prahran, to signal council’s desire to purchase when it is sold in future. Other options being considered include buying railway land or building decking over it, creating ”pocket parks” in dead-end streets and creating roof gardens.

Oskar Cebergs, spokesman for the Chapel Street Precinct Association, said the 6.7 per cent open space figure was ”pretty frightening”. The association was ”fully supportive” of the open space strategy, including the greening of Cato Street car park. But building the car park shouldn’t be a priority over the council’s revitalisation of Chapel Street, including new footpaths, lighting, town squares, furniture and greening.

January 14, 2014

Centenary Park: Before & After

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

January 12, 2014

The Saga Continues…..

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

Neighbours allege ‘threats’ from Kornhauser family

Date: January 12, 2014

Chris Vedelago

Nicole and Eliezer Kornhauser (left) at home and (right) the Springfield Avenue building at the heart of the conflict. Photo: Ken Irwin

A property dispute in a sleepy corner of St Kilda East has spilled from the courts into the streets following allegations that members of one of the nation’s wealthiest families threatened their neighbours.

Police have received complaints about a death threat and abusive behaviour involving Nicole and Eliezer (Eric) Kornhauser, a scion of the Kornhauser business and property empire worth an estimated $430 million.

The couple have been locked in a protracted battle against more than a dozen neighbours and Glen Eira City Council over the future of the Orthodox Jewish school that operates out of a specially designed building attached to their mansion in Springfield Avenue.

Council and court records show complaints about noise, parking and traffic problems in the residential area associated with the ”education centre”, which provides gender-segregated religious instruction to more than 30 boys and young women.

The Kornhausers’ bid to receive retroactive planning permission for the growing ”home school” facility was denied by the council and rejected on appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last year.

But the stoush has now come to police attention amid claims of intimidation and threats of violence in the lead-up to a Supreme Court challenge to the VCAT ruling.

Springfield Avenue resident Jannine Gross has filed a complaint with police following an alleged confrontation with Ms Kornhauser after trying to visit a common neighbour.

”As we were walking through Max’s front gate, I noticed out of the corner of my eye one of Nicole’s young children who is five or six years old walking towards us. He saw us and turned around and ran back towards his house,” the statement said.

”All of a sudden Nicole [Kornhauser] rushed in the gate before we had even left. She put her face about one millimetre away from mine and was screaming into my face, ‘If you touch my children, I will kill you. I will kill you. I will kill you. I will kill you.”’

The complaint also described an incident a month earlier when Mr Kornhauser allegedly pushed Ms Gross’ husband and threatened to ”destroy him”.

Police have declined to comment because of the Supreme Court civil proceeding. But Fairfax Media understands no charges have been laid relating to the complaint.

A spokeswoman for the Kornhausers said: ”The Kornhausers continue to be committed to do what they can to bring about peaceful relations with their neighbours – an outcome recently encouraged among all the neighbours in that area by their ward councillors, at the conclusion of a planning matter involving the parties.”

But some residents are gearing up for a new fight after the council recently withdrew from the Supreme Court case and reversed its opposition to the school.

The council has now voted unanimously in favour of the project after the Kornhausers agreed to cap the number of students at 25, reduce its operating hours and incorporate a neighbouring property they own to provide off-street parking.

”We felt the second application was far better – especially relating to the car parking – and it allayed the concerns we had around the original proposal,” Glen Eira mayor Neil Pilling said.

Fairfax Media understands the council’s new decision will be contested by Springfield Avenue residents in VCAT.

■ cvedelago@theage.com.au

Twitter: @chrisvedelago

January 10, 2014

The Secret Society!

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

The above graphic derives from the South Australian Ombudsman’s audit of 2011 into local councils’ use of confidentiality clauses within their Act. Whilst slightly different to the Victorian Local Government Act, the overriding principles and objectives remain the same – ie. local government decision making must be transparent and accountable.

We have repeatedly commented on the secrecy which permeates much of what goes on in Glen Eira Council and our firm belief that countless decisions, or ‘straw votes’ which amount to the same thing, are made behind the closed doors of assembly meetings. Discussion of items in camera is another well used, and over used tactic by this council. An earlier post (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/a-record-to-be-proud-of/) detailed how many agenda items were ‘relegated’ to back room discussions and the appallingly low number of council decisions which were then made public. Not much has changed with this new council. Of the 50 agenda items decided in camera since November 2012, council announced only 30 decisions – many of which were straight out tenders.

The Local Government Act sets out the broad parameters for when a council may CHOOSE to exclude the public. Please note – this is not mandatory, but optional. The Act also requires councils to provide reasons for their barring of the public. In Glen Eira this requirement has reached the state of sheer farce. Time and again the ‘reasons’ provided are nothing more than tautologies designed to keep the masses ignorant – ie under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter. (in the minutes of 3^rd September and 15^th October 2013. Please note that neither outcome was reported upon.) Other in camera items not reported upon and which we believe have major import for the expenditure of council funds included:

9^th April – 12.2 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” and s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to compliance with the Local Government Act. (More lawyer fees, we wonder?)
2^nd July – which relates to the contract for internal audit services (Given the jobs for the boys approach of this Audit Committee, we wonder which company was ‘rewarded’ with another contract and how much this cost ratepayers?
13^th August – under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to completed capital works approved by Council. (Another stuff up? – GESAC, Duncan Mackinnon perhaps?)
6^th November – An item of Urgent Business under s89(2)(a) personnel and 89(2)(f) legal advice which relates to a personnel matter. (More lawyers, councillor code of conduct panels and more witch hunts? Our bet is Lobo!)
17^th December – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion (Has Maxtra gone? Is this a new contract to fix up the problems? How much is this costing ratepayers?)

All of the above have remained ‘secret’. Yet they undoubtedly involve hundreds of thousands of ratepayer funds and residents are no wiser as to why this money is being spent, and whether or not, it is money spent wisely. A culture of secrecy does not serve the public interest and neither does it serve sound financial management.

In conclusion here are some extracts from the South Australian Ombudsman’s findings. (full report uploaded here). We believe that they are most relevant to the situation in Glen Eira and probably many other councils in this state.

Audit opinion

The evidence from this audit indicates that councils commonly use the confidentiality provisions of the Local Government Act without fully considering or explaining the reasons for excluding members of the public from council meetings. This also results in too many meeting and document confidentiality orders being issued.

Some councils incorrectly believe that they are required to close meetings when they consider certain topics. It also appears that the special circumstances intended in the Act are being misinterpreted by some as a shield to protect their council from ‘pressure from the public’ when debating sensitive topics.

Other councils are misunderstanding or misinterpreting specific provisions in the Act when making an order to close a meeting to the public. They are consequently making orders which would be unlikely to withstand legal challenge.

I formed the view that councils are sometimes moving into confidence over matters of local sensitivity or controversy in an attempt to debate issues without pressure from the public. Such intent is contrary to the democratic objects of the Act.

Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations to specify that the minutes of a council or key committee meeting must include a record of any document tabled at the meeting and/or any verbal briefing given to the meeting on a matter of council business.

A commitment to compliance with the Local Government Act is essential to accountable administration and sound governance. It is important that councils are sensitive to the public’s demand for the open and transparent exercise of municipal power. As such, attention to both the letter and the spirit of the Act is a means of strengthening and improving relations with the community. This builds public confidence in local government.

In my view councils must, after identifying the relevant paragraph of section 90(3) of the Act, then articulate the reasoning behind the order. Details of the reasons for relying on the particular paragraphs in section 90(3) must be provided in order to allow the public to better understand the council’s decision for moving into confidence. This is part of good administrative decision-making. Further, articulating reasons would also help both the administrative staff and councillors to think more carefully about why the public should be excluded from the meeting. In the latter case, this may also help add an appropriate measure of caution to weighing up recommendations for secrecy.

As shown in Figure 3, I found that for 45 of the 80 agenda items examined there were no valid grounds for the council to exclude members of the public. On many other occasions I made the judgement that the order to invoke section 90(2) had been too broad and that many of the details of the discussion could have been held in public. The effect of this would be to limit the in camera deliberations to only those items which were properly the subject of a valid confidentiality order. A recurring example of this is the issue of CEO performance reviews conducted regularly by councils. I advised councils that I could see no good reason to exclude the public from discussions and, consequently, from access to documentation, which covered, inter alia, the key performance indicators established for the CEO position and the criteria for assessing performance. I made the observation on a number of occasions that I can find no compelling reason for considering the matter of CEO performance reviews exclusively in confidence.

On another level, a common risk encountered by many councils during informal gatherings is the building of consensus. I note the advice on this prepared by the Queensland government for its local government sector:29

Building consensus, even in an informal manner, can effectively result in the ‘rubber stamping’ of decisions during subsequent council meetings.

Councillors are required to attend meetings with an open mind and without having predetermined the outcome under consideration. As such, avoiding situations where debate and discussion result in consensus building is imperative.

In my view there can be neither public nor council benefit in suppressing knowledge of how a council is providing its ratepayers with value for money in a tender process. As suggested, a redacted report or ‘blind bidder’ approach can be used if names and amounts are a sensitive issue. My preference is for councils to consider these decisions in public with appropriately modified or redacted reports which can also be made public promptly when the decisions are made and the contract is awarded.

Second, there is a discrete issue with regard to the tabling of documents in confidential meetings. The concern I have is that sometimes documents which are part of the material considered by council in making a decision are not referred to in the minutes. As such, people wishing to understand a particular council decision, or the basis upon which it was made, may have difficulty following the logic and authority of the decision. I found records of meetings where a document has been considered by the council but no reference note or copy made of the material for the minutes.

January 7, 2014

Open Space Levies

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

One component of this strategy has been the review of the current open space contributions program. Areas for improvement that have been addressed in the review include simplifying the schedule of rates, broadening the contribution requirement to all development in the City of Glen Eira, providing direction on when a land contribution should be required, and re-calculating the rate based on the projects included in this strategy and linked to population change in the municipality during the strategy planning period. The strategy establishes the need for all subdivisions to contribute to open space and the type of contribution required, whether as land or equivalent value in cash.

A new schedule is proposed for Clause 52.01 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme An averaged rate to apply across the municipality would replace the schedule of multiple rates currently in the planning scheme. This would simplify the percentage rate calculation for open space contributions and link the funds collected to the open space projects contained in this strategy. Based on the projects recommended in this draft strategy, it is anticipated that this rate will be in the order of 4 to 5 per cent.

Thus sayeth the consultants in the draft Glen Eira Open Space Strategy. How they justify the recommended 4 to 5% flat rate is anybody’s guess given that:

No figures are provided on anticipated costs of acquiring new open space
No figures are provided on anticipated necessary expenditure – for example on pavilion ‘improvements’
No figures are provided on what income is expected from a 4 to 5% increase and to what extent this meets the anticipated costs.

More important is the fact that this draft strategy TOTALLY IGNORES the possibility of levies higher than 5%. Stonnington for example is currently seeking an 8% levy across its municipality largely based on the fact that it has the second lowest amount of public open space in the state. If Glen Eira has the lowest, and is facing major residential development everywhere, then even a 5% levy is a joke!

We cite the following from the Stonnington review of its open space levy strategy and have uploaded the full document HERE. What is most impressive is the detail, the financial analysis, and the correlation between all of Stonnington’s policies – ie Public Realm, Pavilion Strategy, etc.

For starters, here’s what is not revealed in the Glen Eira version –

Clause 52.01 of the VPPs expressly recognises the power of councils to obtain open space contributions under the Subdivision Act, and provides a mechanism for councils to amend the provisions to suit local circumstances.

The Schedule enables a council to set its own contribution rate(s) subject to strategic justification. This can exceed the 5% limit of the Subdivision Act. The percent contribution can be tailored to meet the specific needs of areas and sub-areas, subdivision types (i.e. residential, commercial and industrial) and method of contribution (i.e. cash, land or both). Details of liability can be more clearly defined to suit local conditions. Councils are effectively immune from challenge to the contribution if a Schedule to Clause 52.01 is incorporated into the Planning Scheme and it is unambiguous and applied appropriately. Implementation of a Schedule to Clause 52.01 requires a Planning Scheme amendment. (page 4)

There is then an overview of the various levy approaches that could be taken by councils. For example:

The main advantage of this is its simplicity, clarity and certainty for subdivision proponents and council. A rate around 5% can deliver a significant income stream to council for open space.

The main weakness or disadvantage of this approach is that the nexus between who pays and who receives open space investment benefit – by area – can be weak. As such, it may be difficult to justify a rate higher than the Subdivision Act benchmark of 5% in using a flat rate even if some parts of a municipality would justify this due to high development pressure and open space need. (page 7)

Precinct Based Fixed Rate

The precinct based levy approach differs from the flat rate in that it seeks to provide a stronger nexus between developments that pay open space contributions and areas that receive benefit from planned open space investment. The upshot is that areas with more open space investment will pay a higher contribution, all other things being equal.

The approach links planned investments in an area to the contribution requirement. If an area is to receive no open space investment, the contribution in the area will be zero. The basis for the levy is therefore the planned investment as follows:

Strategic planning work is undertaken and this identifies infrastructure and open space projects that are required or desired for the planning area. This can be documented in a specific open space strategy or plan or a structure plan

The open space projects are identified and costed from this strategic base. The cost of each project is apportioned to subdivision over the life of the funding plan.

The strength of the precinct based approach is that it provides a stronger nexus between developments that pay open space contributions and areas that receive benefit from planned open space investment

The main weakness of the approach is that more justification may be required to support the Planning Scheme amendment process compared to a simple model. The validity of the approach may be based on the rigour of the supporting strategy and information inputs. (page 8)

The report then goes on to provide the necessary financial framework for the final recommendations-

Across the City as a whole, the current levy schedule has delivered about $3.3m per annum on average over the last four years and $6.2m in the latest full financial year.

If a 5% flat rate levy was used instead of the sliding scale over the last four years of levy operation, the income to Council would have been $15.0m over four years at an annual average of $3.8m (instead of the actual $13.2m at $3.3m).

The 5% flat rate would have delivered $6.8m in the 2011/12 financial year (instead of the actual $6.3m). This marginal change is explained by the fact that in that year most subdivisions applied a rate at or near 5%.

Various scenarios using 5% to 10% flat rate levies are shown in Figure 19 below. These levy rates are applied to:

The four years of levy collection from 2008/09 with an average per annum figure produced

The last financial year of levy collection 2011/12

The figures are extrapolated over 20 years to gauge what might be required to achieve approximately $314m in income to cover the cost of proposed open space works via this tool.

The four year data suggests that a flat rate of well over 10% would be needed if planned open space expenditure were to be fully funded from this levy over 20 years. Using the latest year data, projected revenues would be significantly greater, but even at a 10% levy rate, this mechanism would only collect 87% of projected expenditure.

In terms of the Chapel reVision area the levy would need to be set at 8% to fully recover the cost of acquisition and works planned for the area.

CONCLUSIONS?

Stonnington has decided that 5% is far from adequate. We suggest that the same holds true for Glen Eira.
Is Glen Eira Council capable, and/or willing, to do the necessary analysis that will provide the detail for any amendment that has a chance of getting up? Or is it easier to take the simple path and just pluck a figure from the air without really knowing how far this will advance the acquisition of more open space in the municipality?
Is 4 to 5% seen as the secret threshold that will not put off too many developers – even though these extra costs will undoubtedly be passed on to eventual purchasers.
And the perennial question is: why can one council do all this work, be upfront with their strategic planning, and our glorious council persists in waffle, lack of detail and financial justifications, and misinformation!?

January 2, 2014

Delegations Or Mass Councillor Emasculation?

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

Featured above is an item from a recent Melbourne City Council agenda. (We’ve also uploaded the full document here). What caught our eye was:

The existence of a ‘Delegations Policy’ – which of course is non-existent, or secret in Glen Eira.
The limitations put on officers
The clear role of Council and committees to decide important issues that affect the community – again entirely ‘verboten’ in Glen Eira.

If such a policy were to exist in Glen Eira, then the included ‘criteria’ would have ensured that ALL of the following controversies would have been the domain of councillors and not unelected officials.

The surreptitious removal of trees in Caulfield Park
The GESAC basketball allocations fiasco
The introduction of the Residential Zones
Countless Planning decisions decided exclusively by the Delegated Planning Committee (ie officers)
Lawyer fees that are astronomical and we believe unnecessary.

Under the present regime at Glen Eira, the community is basically disenfranchised since councillors have willingly ceded all control to the unelected, faceless and extremely well-paid public servants. Councillors have been willing accomplices in their own emasculation to the detriment of residents.

December 30, 2013

Plan Melbourne: Top Secret In Glen Eira!

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

The latest example of Glen Eira secrecy and decision making behind closed doors comes with the December 6^th closing date for submissions on the State Government’s Plan Melbourne – arguably the most important document since Melbourne 2030.

Other councils:

Have published their submissions and had the drafts ratified at council meetings. Glen Eira has done neither of these things
Have involved the community in drafting their submissions. Glen Eira has been totally secretive.
Glen Eira has not made a ‘submission’ but written a ‘letter’.
Glen Eira stated on December 17^th that the ‘letter’ would be put on on its website. It is yet to appear.

We certainly do not expect this ‘letter’ to be anything other that a page or two of waffle, self congratulations, and total endorsement of Plan Melbourne. Other councils, in contrast, have taken the time and effort to analyse and (often) criticise what they perceive to be the major failings of this document. Below are some extracts taken from these submissions. We wait with bated breath for the Glen Eira version to appear so that residents can clearly see how Glen Eira is failing its ratepayers.

Port Phillip (41 page submission): Source – http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_7_-_Plan_attach_1.pdf

Council highlights its concern that the detailed initiatives and actions proposed in Plan Melbourne do not always align well with ‘issues’ identified in the Plan, nor adequately support implementation of the Plan’s strategic objectives and directions. Proposed initiatives are often lacking in detail and clarity of intent. There are also notable ‘gaps’ in potential actions which offer greatest opportunity to effectively deliver on the objectives of the Plan.

Plan Melbourne does not address how government will respond to the impacts of climate change – specifically climate adaptation to heat waves and flooding/sea level rise. This is considered a major gap in a long term strategy for the development of Melbourne.

Plan Melbourne proposes several initiatives to ‘streamline’ the planning system, including applying VicSmart to medium density housing and affordable housing projects. Proposals which limit community involvement in the planning process, or reduce Local Government’s decision-making responsibilities are not supported.

The new commercial zones reflects a ‘one size fits all’ approach and are contrary to the emphasis in Plan Melbourne on protecting the ‘distinctiveness’ of local areas and to the recognition given to Local Government’s role in planning for Activity Centres.

BOROONDARA – (59 page submission) Source: http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Your%20Council/Building%20and%20planning/Strategic%20planning/Metro%20planning%20strategy%20discussion%20paper%20submission.pdf

Council wishes to express its disappointment at the short time frame given to local governments, the community and stakeholders for reviewing the Strategy and providing submissions. The initiatives and actions in the Strategy will have many local impacts and therefore consultation with communities is very important.

The Strategy does not state whether Local government will have an opportunity to comment on the revised SPPF. Considering that councils use the SPPF in their decision making, it is considered important that they are consulted before the SPPF is finalised.

Clarification is required as to how new locations for Activity Centres will be determined, and what measures will be used to determine the need for new centres. It is unclear if there are State-driven targets for retail or commercial floorspace that the State Government will be seeking to meet. The implications of rezoning land for commercial purposes would need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

The publishing of annual housing development data to inform the development and monitoring of municipal housing strategies is supported, however the ability to gain such information on an annual basis is questioned. It is also unclear what the next step will be once this data is obtained, for example, are there going to be annual reviews and changes to the application of the new zones in response to the data received? Given that the new residential controls have been introduced prior to undertaking the strategic work of projecting housing needs, it is unclear how those projections will be accommodated in the controls.

Updating the design guidelines and introducing measurable standards for high density residential and mixed use development is supported, as is a review of the design, layout, internal living amenity and balcony needs of apartment development. Clarification as to how this will be implemented is required, beyond a consideration of current planning and building controls identified in the Strategy.

STONNINGTON (18 page submission)

Council notes the strategic importance of this Strategy in planning for the City over the next 40 years, and is disappointed that further time wasn’t allowed for Councils and the community to fully consider and respond to this consultation particularly in light of the timing around locally applying the residential planning zone reforms. In addition, Council notes that the State Government expects to release the final Plan Melbourne in January 2014, and is concerned that adequate time and consideration will not be given to the comprehensive comments provided by the City of Stonnington and other submitters

We are aware that the comment period for the Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy closes on 6 December 2013. To this end, Council has held two Drop-in Information Sessions for the community, launched a dedicated consultation web page on Council’s website, placed information regarding the Strategy in the Stonnington Leader, distributed an email alert and undertaken hard copy and electronic surveys to gauge local opinion on the proposed Strategy. These views have helped inform this submission

Plan Melbourne to delete the reference to within 400 metres of an Activity Centre and instead refer to identification of suitable areas in locally specific structure plans and planning controls.

The Caulfield Urban Renewal Area should not extend north of the major barrier of Dandenong Road / rail line.

Strategies requiring State Government lead, include Design Guidelines for higher and medium density development including internal amenity, ESD (Environmental Sustainable Design), WSUD (Water Sensitive Urban Design), licensed venues and liquor licensing policy, and developer contributions schemes.

The Metropolitan Planning Strategy lacks clarity with regard to ‘Activity Centres’ and ‘Neighbourhood Centres’. In some instances these terms are mutually exclusive and in others, Neighbourhood Centres are considered as a subset of Activity Centres.

There are numerous areas around the Stonnington rail lines that are important in terms of heritage and neighbourhood character. Areas suitable for additional residential and mixed-use development, including provision for new open space, should be identified through locally specific structure plans and planning controls

A key concern for Stonnington residents is inappropriate higher density development and the impact on neighbourhood character and internal and external amenity. Robust principles and performance-based guidelines are needed to inform good design outcomes that are responsive and respectful of the local context.

Another key concern is the increasing provision of one person homes to poor standards which can be seen to create ‘slum-like’ areas. Stonnington therefore advocates that greater emphasis needs to be placed in the Strategy on minimum design standards for residential apartments.

Council believes it is not appropriate for Plan Melbourne to specify that land within 400 metres of an Activity Centre are key areas to accommodate higher density housing. Concerns raised are mainly because of the confusion as to which takes statutory and regulatory precedence; Plan Melbourne (which identifies areas within 400 metres of an Activity Centre to be intensified) or the Local Planning Policy Framework, which could potentially have protected areas within this 400 metre radius.

At present there is no evidence-based link between public transport capacity to accommodate increased demand and development approvals. Council believes there needs to be greater emphasis on projected public transport capacity in the application of the new residential zones, whereby lack of public transport capacity is sufficient reason to reduce the intensity of development. For example in saturated road conditions, developments should not be approved on tram or rail corridors until it can be established the that demand created by the development growth can be accommodated.

Levels of parking provision in development proposals must also take into account transport impacts, and not solely market demand. This is of particular importance when the responsible authority considers there are alternative options to the private car available, where several public transport modes are within walking distance such as the Forrest Hill urban renewal area.

Council has noted that there does not appear to be any specific Directions or Initiatives in relation to ESD or WSUD. Stonnington Council wishes to reaffirm the importance of metropolitan-wide strategies requiring State Government lead in both these areas, and the importance of water sensitive urban design in better managing stormwater run-off.

Finally, we’ve uploaded the Save our Suburbs analysis which clearly outlines why Plan Melbourne has the potential to be a boon to developers and a blight on neighbourhoods. We urge all readers to please read, consider and then compare with what kind of effort eventually surfaces from Glen Eira administration and its bunch of ‘yes sir’ councillors!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates