GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 16, 2013

Compare & Contrast – Again & Again!

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

plazaCOMMENT: The irony of this situation should not be lost on anyone. How ‘unreasonable’ that the land owner should want to know what the tenant has in store for their land! Pity that when council hands out carte blanche to the MRC and the Alma Club it doesn’t insist on the same processes. Instead vague, nebulous, and airy-fairy ideas that are likely to change ten times over, get the go ahead!

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

And from The Stonnington Leader –

car share

COMMENT: Readers will remember the fiasco of the ‘debate’ on car sharing in Glen Eira. The same old arguments were trotted out – ‘let’s think about it in the distant future’. Hardly any concrete evidence was provided in the officer’s report and when it did come back to council the resolution was to look at the issue again in a year’s time. Stonnington takes it even one step further – draft papers, and full consultation with their community. Well done Stonnington!

 

July 14, 2013

The Public Realm Becomes Private Gain

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

We’ve received the following correspondence from a resident. It reveals another very worrying aspect of governance and planning within Glen Eira Council.

Saga of 175 Balaclava Road

The development at 175 Balaclava Road in Caulfield North is a corner block facing onto the south side of Balaclava Road and on the western side onto Elmhurst Road. It is zoned Residential 1. It is a narrow, elongated block, approximately 9 x 46 metres. In previous incarnations the land housed a petrol station and a car repair shop, but for many years after that the site was vacant.

A planning application was made in 2006 by a developer for a three storey building comprising 8 units on the site.

The final resolution of planning issues was by mediation at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The VCAT order which confirmed the mediation conditions became the planning permit. A planning permit was issued in January 2007, followed by a corrected permit in May 2007.

That proponent went bust and the site and the permit passed to another developer.

The site had toxicity issues – hydrocarbons, asbestos, and heavy metals. A site environmental assessment report was produced July 2008. Some underground storage tanks were removed, but a complete clean-up of the site did not occur. Instead, the remedy was to cover the whole site with concrete, with the agreement of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

While the standard setback in Balaclava Road is 6 metres, here there was none. At the rear of the block is a sewerage easement. This became the place for a tree (we will see if one appears or not). Little or no permeable area, or open space was provided.

Construction began early in 2013.

In May a framework for balconies appeared over Balaclava Road and Elmhurst Road. Although impressions of the completed building had been put on hoardings around the site it was not apparent balconies were projecting over the street (and casual observers probably did not consider such a thing possible). Clarification was repeatedly sought from the local council. A building inspector said he had visited the site and suggested the projections were verandahs rather than balconies and that they were in accordance with the permit. The permit stated that these balconies should not impinge more than 1 metre into the public domain.

An inquiry was made at the council office to see the plans for the development. The plan showed balconies extending over both roads. The plan was approved on 10 September 2010. At least three extensions of time must have been granted.

There was also a request to see the planning permits for the site. A member of council staff said that the request would incur a fee of $52 for the ‘history’ of the site. Section70 of the Planning and Environment Act was cited: “The responsible authority must make a copy of every permit that it issues available at its office for inspection by any person during office hours free of charge.” A staffer said she would get a copy of the permit and went away.

She came back without the permit and accompanied by a man named ‘John’ who said he was an enforcement officer. John explained that viewing of the permit was not necessary as it was ‘more or less’ the same as the VCAT order.

Glen Eira Council said there would be a delay in providing the permits because the permits had to come from archives offsite. A couple of weeks later, council said that the files could not be located in the archives, and later still that the files had been located and forwarded to the council, but had been mislaid in the council offices. Further inquiry was met with polite but firm hostility – more inquiry was not welcome, and council would forward advice when the files were found. That was weeks ago, and the advice is still not forthcoming.

And what of the public space occupied by developers in this way?

In the case of 175 Balaclava Road, if setback and permeability rules had been applied it is likely that two units would have to be removed from the development – a loss of over $1million to the developer. The occupation of public space over the footpath is equivalent to a gift of at least $50,000 to the developer. Indeed the developer advertises the ‘private’ ‘huge balconies’ as a key feature of the place.

On May 6th this publicity was downloaded –

SMALL BOUTIQUE DEVELOPMENT – HUGE STAMP DUTY SAVINGS! – 1 + STUDY

175 BALACLAVA ROAD – CAULFIELD

 Selection of designer 1 and 2 bedroom apartments starting from $450,000. Buy now off the plan for massive stamp duty savings. Ideally suited to owner occupiers or the astute investor. In a sought after location close to shops, cafes, bars, Monash University, Chadstone Shopping Centre, parklands and with easy access to public transport and within close proximity to the CBD.

 Features include: high quality fittings throughout, designer kitchen with granite bench tops and glass splashbacks, reverse cycle air conditioning, security entrance, individual secure undercover car park with storage cage, huge balconies, open plan living.

 Charles Marvelli: 0423 530 172

On Friday 24 May 2013 the Estate Agent for this site rang back to tell me there were 3 units left, a ground floor unit with one bedroom and a study was selling at $550,000, while a two-bedroom unit on the first storey was $612,000. The units would become available early next year.

According to the ‘responsible’ authorities spoken to at local and state government level there are no rules regarding the occupation of public space by developers. It is terra nullius – free for the taking, by developers at least. Our loss their gain, all facilitated by government authorities and the courts.

Who bears the legal liability for private occupiers of public open space? Is it the council (and therefore rate payers) who issued the permit? Who has the right of use of this public space? Is it exclusive to the building occupant? Is a homeless person who sleeps on a balcony occupying public space committing trespass? Can someone store goods there rent free? Can anyone attach posters or banners to these balconies? If there’s an accident who pays? What is council’s policy on allowing developers to extend into the public realm?

Reflecting on my experience with the above, it is clear that

1/ It is often very difficult to discover what the history of a development is, especially when conducted over such a long time frame. Many residents come and go in that time.

2/ The operation of planning in Glen Eira, and in the State, is unduly complex and not especially transparent.

3/ There is a distinct lack of clarity in the operation of planning rules – in Glen Eira and in  planning generally there is a strong tendency for abandonment of rules in favour of development of any kind. Exception is the rule.

4/ Developers, Glen Eira Council and VCAT appear to use complexity in planning schemes and processes to subvert opposition from communities.

5. Council’s planning register which is a legal requirement is far from accurate and up to date. Much detail in missing and even what’s there is impossible to decipher.

Simple planning rules would be adequate – areas for development prescribed, mandatory height limits applied, and open space and permeable areas mandated on a scientific basis.

Where planning rules and their implementation is not transparent the public is right to be suspicious.

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

COMMENT

Worthy of mention is the fact that we believe that some of the public questions that suddenly went astray and hence weren’t read out by Burke, concerned this development and these issues! Questions galore arise:

  • Does the community receive any compensation for this encroachment on public land? If not, why not?
  • Does council have a policy on such issues? Where is it? Other councils do have extensive policies that state clearly the conditions upon which public land can be used and the cost to the developer. (uploaded here)
  • How many other ‘gifts’ have developers received from Council – especially in residential areas?
  • Why have so many standards contained in the planning scheme been ignored – ie setbacks, excessively high walls on neighbouring properties, failure to respect neighbourhood character and countless others?
  • What does all this say about council’s mandatory record keeping processes?
  • Why are residents subjected to false claims for payment?
  • Is there a ‘cover-up’ going on here?

We’ve also received the following photographs: (a) the developer’s ‘vision’, and (b) the construction phase at two different angles and at different time periods.

balconies

balcony2-1

bala2p-1

 

July 12, 2013

When Silence Is Not Golden

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

New planning scheme speeds up planning approval in suburbs

DEVELOPERS can now build restaurants, larger shops and high-density apartments without troublesome permits.

The planning zones changes came into effect on July 1 and have split councils.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the changes would simplify commercial and industrial zones, provide more retail floor space and encourage investment, particularly in Melbourne’s urban fringe.

Whitehorse Council fears the changes could open parts of the municipality to uses not contemplated for these areas, and displace industrial activities.

Whitehorse city development general manager Julie Reid said the council endorsed a submission to Mr Guy in September outlining concerns with the changes.

“In particular, there is a concern with the commercial zones significantly changing the range of uses permissible in the existing zones,” Ms Reid said.

“This will have the effect of opening up parts of the municipality to a range of uses not contemplated for these areas and potentially in contradiction to many of the council’s policies for these locations.”

She said there was support for some of the changes to industrial zones.

“Council has the flexibility of being able to determine how much office floor space is appropriate in ­industrial precincts across the municipality.

“Some of the other changes to the industrial zones could, however, displace industrial activities.”

Ms Reid said it was not known whether the changes would benefit commercial and industrial property owners in Whitehorse, or whether housing demand would increase in the commercial 1 zone.

She said the changes would result in fewer uses requiring planning permission, and where a permit was required, the guidance for assessing applications had been improved.

Changes support council plans

Meantime, Maroondah Council has applauded the changes to planning zones that allow apartments in Ringwood and Croydon’s main business areas.

But council is reserving judgment on the effect of the changes on the rest of the municipality, and will spend the next 12 months working out which areas will need special protection.

Maroondah Council’s director of city development Phil Turner told the Leader because Mr Guy had only just released the zone reforms last week, council officers were still reviewing those changes.

They would make a full briefing to the council later this month.

However, Mr Turner did say that the new planning zones supported Maroondah’s plans for the Ringwood Central Activities Area and the Croydon Town Centre Structure Plan.

“Council has specifically encouraged a mix of higher density residential and commercial developments within the Ringwood Activity Centre,” Mr Turner said.

“Croydon has also been the focus of major residential development over the past few years, with high density, apartment-style living encouraged in and around the town centre.”

ON JULY 1, five business zones were consolidated into two commercial zones with relaxed rules on the types of businesses that could open or expand without a planning permit

VICTORIA’S three industrial zones have also been amended to remove floor space restrictions and allow small supermarkets up to 1800sq m, which were previously not allowed

CONVENIENCE shops will be allowed in Industrial 3 land to create commercial opportunities and competition

MORE information can be found on the Department of Planning and Community Development website.

– with Melanie Gardiner and Emma Hastings

 

July 10, 2013

When Is Enough, Enough?

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

zone1

zone2

 

July 9, 2013

Why Grill’d?

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

Glen Huntly Rd Bicycle Parking0001_Page_1

Glen Huntly Rd Bicycle Parking0001_Page_2

 

July 7, 2013

Silence, Secrecy & Subterfuge

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

Over the past week there have been numerous announcements about the Residential Zones and their implementation. First off the 7pm ABC News stated that Boroondara and Glen Eira were to be the first to introduce the new zones. Next came 2 Age articles where again Glen Eira was mentioned as being first cab off the rank. Even the Minister’s Media Release this week highlighted the fact that he thought that many councils would introduce the zones within 4 months.

We don’t for a second think that there is nothing to these stories. Such stories don’t just happen. They must have originated from somewhere! You don’t just pluck one or two councils out from 79! What irks us even more is that for the past year not a single statement has come out about the new zones from Glen Eira councillors or administrators – except for the formal submission. Residents have not been informed about a single thing. We do not know:

  • Whether there will be any public consultation – which has already been ongoing in countless other councils
  • Whether the shambles that constitutes Housing Diversity and Minimal Change will remain untouched?
  • What the available height limits will be. Remember nothing is mandatory in Activity Centres.
  • Whether Council will abide by the minimalist ResCode standards or attempt to introduce their own?
  • Or whether this council is content to rely on plans drawn up eons ago with no further local analyses and comprehensive planning – despite the burgeoning population and the growth of dwellings?

What makes us even more suspicious regarding the intent of excluding the public is that under Section 20 of the Planning and Environment Act, Council has the power to simply request the minister to authorise an amendment without formally notifying residents or seeking submissions. Further, Council’s response to 2 public questions on Tuesday night has only added fuel to the suspicion that residents will be left out in the cold and that the new zones are already a fait accompli.

One question specifically asked when council would begin its public consultation process. The answer was incredibly brief – “Council has not yet decided” and typically uninformative. The other question noted the media reports. Council’s response was that they don’t control the media. True, but when the Leader has in the past published negative articles Council was very quick to denounce and deny the articles. No denial was proffered to this question. We do not for one moment believe that nothing has been decided. And, if ‘undecided’ then what does it say about the overall planning capability of this council and getting their act together in a timely fashion? These zone reforms are important. Council has had a year to decide on the appropriate time. It is far more likely that this answer has as much veracity as countless other public statements by council. We firmly believe that:

  • This council will secretly and surreptitiously introduce the new zones
  • There will be no public consultation whatsoever
  • The anomalies and injustices of planning will continue

If we are right, then every single resident in Glen Eira should be outraged. The Minimal Change and Housing Diversity zoning is a failure. It is a myth that 80% of the municipality is protected. Housing Diversity areas have expanded and expanded to now include all major roads and those roads with trams. Activity centre and neighbourhood centre ‘borders’ have also grown – especially if they are anywhere near a railway line. Thus if anything, it is no longer 80/20 but a conservative 70/30. Furthermore, most high density is in these growing areas where we’ve had 8, 10 and 12 storeys approved. It is no longer a single application for dual townhouses. Blocks of land are now seen to quite comfortably accommodate 3-4 storeys and 30 units. And even in the much lauded Minimal Change, if the land is on a corner block, or happens to be a tad larger than the average, or lies a few hundred metres from an Activity Centre, then it’s become the norm for multi-unit development.

Our guesstimate is that as a result of this cramming, perhaps 50% of Glen Eira’s population now resides in these areas. Council of course hasn’t undertaken a ‘review’ of its Housing Strategy since the dark ages and it wouldn’t surprise us at all if they have absolutely no idea of population densities in each suburb. That’s the sort of work that needed to be going on over the past few years and definitely needs to be going on now – BEFORE any arbitrary zoning lines are drawn on the municipal map. If any of these figures are available, then we simply challenge this council to produce them and argue its case.

What is even more discriminatory is that these high density areas are not accorded the basics of social and environmental amenity according to this planning scheme. They lack adequate open space provision; landscaping; onsite car parking. They are also subject to greater site coverage and it is not considered too bad if 25% of dwelling don’t get natural sunlight. That is the legacy of this planning scheme and its creators. And this is what will continue if the zones are simply rubber stamped. In 2002 people did not realise the repercussions of the amendment which established all this (c25). Now it is clear to everyone. Residents must have a say on their future. If not, this council should be dismissed.

Finally, we include the consultation program that Stonnington has set out for the next few months. Its willingness to engage and encourage residents is the total reverse of what happens in Glen Eira on so many fronts.

Pages from stonnington consultation_Page_1 Pages from stonnington consultation_Page_2

 

July 5, 2013

Burke Rewrites History – Again!

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

A joint letter/petition containing 116 signatures was tabled at last Tuesday night’s council meeting. The letter/petition, as presented in the draft minutes, reads:

We the undersigned, supported by our concerned neighbours, pedestrians, and users of Tucker Rd Bentleigh, wish to bring to your attention the following:-

  • The above referred to property, has been left vacant for over seven years, except for the recent buildings at the rear of the property, on Box Court.
  • The original house has been, and continues to be vandalised, and defaced by graffiti. Squatters have been a regular problem.
  • The unattended plant growth is harbouring vermin (as reported by neighbours) and possibly reptiles, which could pose a threat to the health and safety of nearby residents and the many pedestrians.
  • Disregarding the recent temporary fence, it can also be a safe and welcoming haven for the unsavoury characters who may prey on the ’unsuspecting’ who frequently use the adjacent footpath throughout the day and into the late evening (anyone, from school children to the aged).
  • The site is an absolute disgrace and an ‘eye-sore’ which degrades our beautiful Bentleigh Street. Property of neighbouring houses could be devalued because of this shameful and neglected site.
  • The Old House was once a magnificent building and the garden greatly admired. It was, we believe, regarded as a ‘Heritage Listed’ property. It is such a shame to see it so dilapidated.”

 Crs Lobo/Magee

That the Petition be received and noted.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

All well and good. EXCEPT, that when minutes are created and parade themselves as the honest to goodness literal and verbatim truth, then they should be precisely that – accurate to 100%. These minutes are not. When Paul Burke read out the letter/petition he stated the address of the property – 150 Tucker Road, Bentleigh. This has now vanished – although there is nothing to indicate to the reader that there is anything missing. No “…..” to indicate an excision, or any comment to this effect. Without knowing any better the general public would have to assume that this is what the letter/petition stated. History re-written for the official record – and not for the first time!

But there’s more to this story than the simple omission of an address. The history of this dwelling goes all the way back to 2006 according to council’s application register. In short, this is a clear case of ‘land banking’ and permit extension after extension. The result is the ‘eyesore’ and derelict property at 150 Tucker Road.

Last year there was an agenda item where councillors had asked for a report on collecting statistics related to permit extensions.  (See: minutes of June 12th 2012). Instead of responding to the actual request the report tried its darndest to do nothing of the sort. Here are some quotes:

 Council does not currently keep statistics in relation to requests for extensions of time. As mentioned previously, a process change would be required to enable statistics to be recorded– in other words, ‘we won’t do it’.

Then there’s also this – …what is the purpose or insight provided by keeping extension of time statistics? There would appear to be limited value to be gained in extracting these statistics. It may be thought that they are some form of economic or lead indicator about development. If this is so, a better lead indicator is building approvals.

The final recommendation included: “Not commence statistic recording in relation to the requests received for extension of planning permits”.

The final resolution carried by councillors stated that statistics should START being collected. One year on there have been no reports on how many applications for extensions there have been, nor how many have been granted in this time. What should have happened is that officers be ordered to collate data for the past decade at least. In that way the true picture of what is going on in Glen Eira would be apparent.

When developers hold onto blocks of land granted a permit, or allow derelict houses to remain standing for years on end, the result isn’t merely the vandalism and eyesore of 150 Tucker Rd or the generally increased value of the land for development. Extension after extension equates to piecemeal planning all over again since there is no recognition of what is happening in surrounding properties or areas. Kingston insists that requests for permit extensions are not automatically approved by officers, but that these applications come back to councillors for re-appraisal. Six years down the track many things may have changed. Drainage, parking, noise, traffic – all may be reasons to amend the old permit and not simply rubber stamp it again with another extension.Simply rubber stamping extensions does no-one a favour except perhaps the developer.

Which takes us back to the beginning of the post and the attempt to rewrite history. 150 Tucker Rd should be visited by all those concerned with how this council deals with planning issues and how it appears to bend over backwards to support developers rather than maintain the amenity of residents. Readers should also question why the address of this property just happened to disappear from the transcript. Or is this simply another case of ‘clerical error’!!!!!!!

 

July 4, 2013

Public Questions: Hide & Seek!

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

The tradition of Glen Eira Council not responding to public questions in an open, honest, and forthright manner continues. Specifics are ignored, even though the questions focus on specifics; sniping when possible is taken full advantage of, instead of treating all residents with respect. This is par for the course.

But, what is happening far more frequently is the inexcusable failure to read out and answer all questions that have been submitted. We know of at least 3 questions that were submitted via email and the internet for last Tuesday. None of these were read out – they simply did not exist. There was no mention of them on any grounds under the ‘inadmissable’ section of the Local Law. Other questions in the past have been deposited at the front desk, received the requested ‘receipt’ and were clearly marked as ‘public questions’. These also failed to show up at council meetings. For an organisation that continually trumpets its marvellous efficiency, we find it extremely difficult to believe that these questions were not received by council.

So what can we conclude? That all of these questions just happened to disappear? That we are having a plague of ‘clerical errors’? That the fortune that is spent on council computer systems may just be a dud? That there is major inefficiency within the ranks? Or simply, that council did not want these questions in the public domain and they certainly didn’t want to answer them?

It’s also worth reporting on what occurred following the reading out of SOME of the submitted questions:

PILLING: asked whether there are any ‘outstanding questions’ – in particular from one resident.

BURKE: ‘As far as I know’ Burke claimed there weren’t.

HYAMS: then said that there was one question that was read out that they hadn’t received in the normal form because the resident then emailed again to reinforce that she had submitted the question.

BURKE: since Mr xxxxx was ‘actually in the audience’ Burke wanted to remind him of a conversation they had a ‘few months back’ where the resident thought ‘he sent a couple of items in’ but they weren’t received and that when the resident checked his Sent-Box ‘you couldn’t find them either’.

RESIDENT: stated that he had resent them but would have to double check if they went to the ‘right address’.

HYAMS: welcomed the resident resubmitting. Delahunty then interceded.

DELAHUNTY: Asked whether the resident could ask his ‘question now‘.

HYAMS: (Quite flummoxed at this point) ‘Well….generally, the Local Law’ (more mumble, mumble) determines what might be considered out of order and – that was not to suggest that what the resident was asking out of order, but there was the issue of ‘precedence’. Also ‘the chances of getting an answer now’ would be small. ‘So we will move on’!

COMMENT: God forbid that this council sets a ‘precedent’! In fact, it wouldn’t be a precedent since according to the Local Law the chairman is able to do wondrous things at his discretion. The bottom line is that this has got nothing to do with the Local Law and everything to do with Hyams and this council’s terror in permitting residents to speak their minds, offer a view, or even ask a question that might just get a more honest response from the spin doctors without the necessary time to fudge, dissemble, and deflect.

Our next post will illustrate why none of the questions asked received an answer!

 

July 3, 2013

Delahunty & Notice Of Motion

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

DELAHUNTY: asked for a report on how Section 3 of the Local Law (Meeting Procedures) ‘compare’ to other councils and ‘best practice’. Also wanted the report to include ‘published opinions and guidelines’ from ‘peak bodies’ and to look at the absence of notice of motion in current local law as well as to ‘assess the effectiveness of section 232’ (public questions) and again compare this with best practice. Also wanted an assessment of ‘effectiveness’ of Section 238 (Right to make a Statement) and to ‘compare this procedure against other councils’. Magee seconded.

Delahunty went on to say that she recognised that this had been ‘discussed’ in the past but it should be discussed again. Since the local law is currently being reviewed by the Local Laws Committee asking for the report now is ‘timely’ in ‘order to inform our discussions’ so they know if they’re ‘consistent with other councils’ and learning from others. Not ‘necessarily’ a ‘call to change the local law’ but a call to ‘inform a discussion’. Wanted data about other councils so that there is some ‘benchmark’. Said that in her personal view ‘council is out of step with what could be considered as best practice’ in these areas. Councillors have to make sure that they are ‘all comfortable’ with how meetings ‘are run’. The report should ‘guide us’ on ‘how to increase transparency and accountability’ and ‘community participation’. Said she ‘believed’ that ‘all councillors have right to raise notice of motion’ and that residents should ‘be heard at meetings’ so if it’s all about transparency, accountability and participation then those things need to ‘be fixed’ in the Local Law. Said that she’d ‘like to know’ that Glen Eira is acting in concert with other councils so that people who come from elsewhere ‘don’t fall down in their ability to be able to participate’ and that all councillors everywhere have the ‘same participation rights’. Wanted to know that if this is about transparency then how the processes aid ‘public perception’ of transparency. Wanted to know ‘how we can encourage our community to take a more active role in the meetings’. Wants the report back ‘in a timely manner’. (applause)

MAGEE: said he supports the motion and ‘eagerly awaits the report’.

SOUNNESS: said he doesn’t know ‘what’s broken’ he only knows this council. Was also looking forward to the report and seeing how other councils do things and whether councillors ‘throw each other’ in chambers’…’it will be interesting’.

PILLING: thanked Delahunty. Acknowledged that this had come up before but thought it was right that the ‘new council’ looked at it again. ‘Suspected’ that there is a ‘historical context’ that would explain why Glen Eira ‘does what it does’ but thought that it ‘is time’ to ‘potentially think about modernising‘. The report will ‘give us an idea of where we stand’.

HYAMS: said that Delahunty was right about it coming up previously and that back in 2004 he had wanted a notice of motion and that it had also ‘been discussed in last term of council’ but he was ‘happy to have the discussion again’. Asked Delahunty to clarify saying that her request could be ‘read as the whole local law’ or was she just wanting the 3 things that she’d nominated? Delahunty reiterated that she’s asking about the Section 3 of the local law. Hyams then asked whether she wanted the ‘whole section’ compared or just the 3 things within that section.

DELAHUNTY stated that knowing it had come up before she didn’t want a report that was ‘too narrow’ and if there is something in that particular division of the local law that ‘was inconsistent with other councils’ that the report should also highlight these things. The 3 things mentioned she wants ‘particularly noted’ but also ‘leeway to raise any other options’.

Thought that the discussion would be ‘lively’. Was looking forward to what the report had to say about other councils and how Glen Eira could increase transparency and accountability and she wanted to know ‘how question time can work a bit better’. Read out a bit from the  ‘governance grab’ from government that said question time should ‘be engaging and responsive’. The quote went on to say that having someone read out the public question in a ‘monotone …can be deadening’. ‘That’s exactly what we do’ with our public questions. ‘No wonder, or it’s possible’ about the lack of ‘public participation’ and whether this ‘trickles down’ to the voting and ‘the feel about local government’ and wanted to know what can be done to ‘improve this’. On notice of motion she said that she would ‘find it very hard to be convinced that we don’t deserve the right to raise notices of motion’. Residents also deserve the right to ‘expect us to raise’ these motions and act ‘within the councillor code of conduct’. Notice of motion shouldn’t be thought of as ‘a nuisance’ but part of the process ‘that is afforded to pretty much every other council in Victoria apart from us’.

Thought that the Right of Reply was also ‘inconsistent’ and that it should be available to the individual who ‘wants to make the reply’. Gave the example that if she ‘had an issue with a letter that was written’ into a local newspaper and ‘might have said that I lied about’ councillor campaign donations and made that ‘comment about two of my other councillor colleagues’ and if she wanted to make that reply she would have to ‘write it and have someone else read it out for me’. ‘Now if I’m so incensed at being called as liar…have my integrity questioned….I’d like to read that out myself’. So this aspect also ‘needs addressing’.

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

July 3, 2013

The Alma Club Decision

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

It was standing room only at tonight’s council meeting which was taken full advantage of by most councillors with further academy award performances by several. Here’s a brief summary of what occurred apart from the Alma Club application which is reported on in full –

  • Alma Club development rejected unanimously
  • Lipshutz arguments totally inconsistent and arrogant
  • Delahunty threw down the gauntlet regarding a request for a report on Notice of Motion and other aspects of the Local Law Meeting Procedures. Newton was looking decidedly uncomfortable.
  • Hyams could not help himself once again with personal attacks on a resident and a former councillor, plus of course, allusions to this blog!
  • Sounness remains a major concern, and Okotel appears way out of her depth. Esakoff was absent again.
  • Not one councillor uttered the word planning or traffic management when it came to how wonderful the Community Satisfaction Survey was despite the fact that the gap between ‘importance’ and ‘performance’ had grown in some crucial areas.
  • Public questions remained unanswered, or even worse, lost in the ether somewhere – for the second council meeting running!

ALMA CLUB DEVELOPMENT

Magee moved the motion to reject on several grounds: minimal change area, size, bulk, traffic, neighbourhood character, landscaping, lack of sunlight for dwellings, etc. Seconded by Lipshutz

MAGEE: asked Akehurst to ‘explain’ why the application has already ended up at VCAT

AKEHURST: started off by saying that under the law councils had 60 days to make the decision regardless of the complexity of the proposal. This one wasn’t ‘minor’ or simple and because of the ‘sheer amount of referrals’ to various departments that caused the delay. The planning conference and its organisation also caused a delay and this was something that council didn’t have to do, but council does it anyway because ‘it provides an opportunity for residents to better understand the application and express their views’. This ‘throws’ some time into the process of ‘getting a decision’. He then went on to ‘conjecture’ and thought it ‘fair to say’ that the developer had ‘read the tea leaves’ and guessed that it would end up at VCAT so he probably ‘thought let’s stand in the VCAT queue’ and that’s the reason for this ‘failure appeal’. Claimed that this was ‘good news’ from council’s and residents’ viewpoints since he didn’t think there was any ‘disadvantage to what council does’ about its position. Said that council still has to ‘form a view’ and that all this means is that council doesn’t have to ‘formalise’ its view and that will be the view presented at VCAT.

MAGEE: said that developers have a ‘right to develop land’ and if this was in a different area, bigger street, then ‘it would be fine’. Claimed it ‘would suit Dandenong Rd’ and other areas in Glen Eira. But it ‘doesn’t suit a street that’s a dead end’. Claimed that he’d sat in his car in Wilks St for about 45 minutes and that he ‘didn’t see a lot of traffic’ but that he would ‘hate this development to be in my street’. Admitted that none of the councillors are town planners or experts and all they do is ‘look at the information we’re given’ and then they make a ‘judgement call’. Councillors after all are only ‘mums and dads’ and they judge ‘things on what is acceptable’ and what should be ‘imposed on others’. Said that they’re there to listen and sometimes they make decisions that aren’t popular but this one is ‘easy’. Councillors at last election said they wouldn’t support inappropriate development and ‘this is an imappropriate development’. Finally it’s not the ‘right development for the right street’. (applause).

LIPSHUTZ: started with what he’s always said that ‘I won’t make a decision because it’s a popular decision. I will make a decision because I believe it is the right decision’. People have told him that they voted for him and now he should do what they say but ‘I won’t do that, I’ll do what is right’. Said that he looked at the plans, the site, and thought it was a ‘good development for the site’ because it was large and was going to be developed anyway. Said that he’d been ‘contacted about 50 or 60 times’ by residents and had emails, phone calls, letters, and ‘many of them I disregarded’ because he didn’t ‘think they were valid’. In the end he did what Magee did by asking himself if he was living there ‘would I want this in my street’ and decided ‘I wouldn’t’. Also thought that if they reject and it goes to VCAT then VCAT ‘won’t have anything in-between’ and thought that councillors could still seek to ‘modify’ the development and it will be developed but ‘it has to be appropriate development’. Said he wasn’t ‘convinced’ by arguments about looking at a wall across from houses because the set backs allow it. Also wasn’t convinced that ‘there may be flooding’ because that’s a building issue and ‘not a planning issue’. Traffic also wasn’t convincing because if you’ve got 73 apartments or 50 apartments ‘you’re going to have traffic’. Said that council would probably make this non residential parking permits for the units. Said he was ‘concerned about the mass and the bulk’ since it was ‘too big, too large’ and inappropriate. Said he represents ‘you as residents’ and that he’s ‘got to do what is right’ and ‘not popular’ but here ‘it’s probably both’. Went on to say he was concerned about ‘mischief making’ by some people for claiming that ‘this wouldn’t have happened’ if council had bought the land. Claimed that ‘it was never offered to council’…’council was never going to buy this development’…’it was never offered to council’. Said that council wouldn’t spend 8 million to buy the site and that it is ‘an inappropriate place for a park’. Said that ‘it was always going to be a development site’.

DELAHUNTY: spoke to the gallery saying that they are a wonderful community group and hoped that their opposition would continue and that she’d been told that people had met each other and that’s what ‘community groups are about’. Went on to pay her respects to the work done by the community on this and to Cheryl Forge who was present. Said that all of the points people wrote were ‘well made’ and even though ‘they may feel flippant’ to some other councillors they do ‘impact’ on people’s lives. The points people raised ‘informed our discussions’ and officer reports and her decision to reject the application. The main question was whether the application is ‘appropriate to the site’ and most agree that it isn’t. Even though the officers’ report tried to make this more appropriate she still ‘rejects the premise of the argument’ – that it can be ‘intense development’. Instead of ‘fiddling’ with the proposal via conditions and since they’re not experts then it ‘makes sense’ to reject it. Said that her job as councillor is to ‘bring together the objectives of the planning scheme and your views’. She quoted from the planning scheme about ‘protecting the liveability’ of residents and ‘amenity of Glen Eira’ and any new development ‘provides a high level of amenity’. Admitted that ‘amenity’ was hard to define but it also included parks and as far as as 1998 the old Open Space strategy noted the lack of open space in this area of the municipality. Another statement from this old plan was to be continually on the lookout to acquire more open space ‘so I don’t think it’s mischief making to wonder whether or not Council seriously considered’ buying the land. It’s too late now and ‘nothing’ can be done (applause). Told people ‘never to feel’ that their participation has ‘been a waste of time’ and ‘don’t listen to anyone who tells you that’…’even if those people are sitting around this table’….your participation in this process is what gives our argument validity’. Residents put councillors in their position to ‘carry your arguments forward’. (applause).

SOUNNESS; said if the site was ‘elsewhere’ it might be okay but not where it was in a minimal change area. He would love council to be able to say we’d love only ‘so many units’ but they can’t since it ‘would become unrecognisable’ from its ‘current form’. ‘I’d like to say 20 is enough, 2 storeys is enough’ but ‘we can’t do that’ only respond’ to what has been submitted. When the VCAT hearing come up ‘there will have to be negotiations’. Hoped that there would be ‘a satisfactory outcome down the line’.

LOBO: started off by reading from the Local Government act talking about the role of council to ensure the ‘long term’ benefits for residents. Said the development was ‘an eve of destruction’ and that its ‘intensity’ would ruin ‘neighbourhood character’ and have impact ‘long after the developer has disappeared with a fortune’. (applause). Said that residents need to be ‘looked after’ because they pay their rates and pay for the councillors ‘including the Mayor and all the officers’. ‘Our duty of care and loyalty must be towards our masters and that is you in the gallery’. The development will be an ‘eyesore’ and building it will be like ‘establishing the second alcatraz prison’. Mentioned a couple of permits granted to places in Wilks st – such as a doctors rooms and another 2 unit lot so the impact of traffic and parking is already felt. Said that people are wondering why there isn’t such development ‘on the other side of the road’ in Stonnington, ‘they feel that Glen Eira is a soft target to the developers’ when compared to Stonnington. Houses will be overshadowed and that will affect the existing solar panels on some. ‘This monstrosity of a development’ will cause ‘stress’. Said that ResCode was a ‘joke’ with its parking quotas. The development could have 125 cars and comparing this to what the traffic was when the club was operating is like the second ‘coming of David and Goliath’. Constructionww ould also create ‘chaos’. Let the State Government ‘have blood on their hands’ and the ‘madness of development’. (applause).

OKOTEL: others had already spoken well and ‘eloquently’. For here 2 issues – minimal change area and an ‘overdevelopment’ and ‘inappropriate development’. Said there were ‘technical defects’ like ‘overlooking’ and ‘lack of natural light’ and ‘landscaping of area’. Therefore there are ‘many reasons’ why the application should fail. (applause).

HYAMS: started off by saying that ‘council’s role is not to necessarily represent the people’.Rather they are a ‘quasi-judicial body’ and have to look at planning law. He decides on how he thinks the planning law should ‘be interpreted’. Trouble with saying that they represent the people is that if there is an objection then they’d have to vote with that objection ‘so nothing would ever get through’. ‘So we do need to be responsible’. His decision is ‘therefore based on planning law’. Said it wasn’t an ‘easy decision’ and that he could understand the officers and their recommendations. Saw the ‘major stumbling block’ that it was in a minimal change area but there’s an ‘exception’ if it’s a large block which this is. Said that people who live in a minimal change area have the ‘right to expect’ that there be town houses next to them but not something like this. He would prefer subdivision into houses but ‘it’s not our role to tell the applicant what to do’. Said that a public question asked about the VCAT appeal and when council found out about it. He provided the answer here even though public questions swere usually held at the end. Said that the 60 days ended on June 17th; the appeal was lodged on 21st June and council were notified on the 26th June. Went on to explain that VCAT will now come back to council and ask them to provide a set of conditions for what might be acceptable  if they would contemplate giving a permit but this still doesn’t negate council’s opposition to the permit, it will just be a ‘draft permit’ with ‘conditions’.

Went on to answer some of the questions raised at the planning conference. Drainage is part of the building permit so not ‘ignored’. Parking permits would also be banned. Named one individual who had said that Glen Eira is the ‘fastest growing municipality’. He didn’t want people to think that they’re cramming people in so got the ‘census figures’ and ‘there are 17 that grow faster than us’ and ’13 that grow less fast’. Claimed that population had increased by 5.5% and Whyndham had increase by over 40% and Port Phillip and Yarra had also increased more than Glen Eira. Said that it was also ‘suggested that we do nothing to protect our residents from overdevelopment’ but that Glen Eira does have a minimal change policy and ‘that does a lot to protect’ people.‘So it’s a shame that someone who didn’t really have a connection to this application felt the need to come in and say things like that’. Went on to talk about the purchase of the site and said that ‘there was an offer put to us’ to pay off the 3 million debt but ‘we wouldn’t have had the site’ because ‘to buy it would have cost 8 million’ and then redeveloping it another ‘couple of million more’. They also didn’t think that this site was appropriate for a park since they want parks to be ‘more accessible to the community’ but this one was ‘down a narrow one way street’. Said he was ‘surprised’ that Forge suggested this since in her ‘election campaign’ said that ‘our debt was unmanageable and there should be no rate rises’ but still find 10 million for this one. Wished everyone ‘luck’ at VCAT.

MAGEE: disagreed with what Hyams said about Forge since she has always been an ‘advocate’ for ‘financial management’ and always did things with ‘the best conscience’ and ‘best intentions’ whilst a councillor and that ‘she’s still a good friend of mine’. Went on to give advice to developer that it should ‘improve the amenity of the street’ and that it shouldn’t ‘set the amenity’. They have potential to set precedents but change has to ‘enhance’ and not reduce amenity. (applause)

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »