GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

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 12^th 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)

July 1, 2013

‘Consultation’ Glen Eira Style!

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

Residents beware! Council is pretending to undergo a ‘community consultation’ process on the Caulfield Park Conservatory. Despite the fact that the ill-named Community Plan endorses and emphasises the need for multiple methods of consultation, all that is being done in this case is a ‘survey’ with preset and predetermined questions. Far from being a ‘neutral’ set of questions, here we have questions that are not placed in context and completely fail to provide residents with the information that is essential in order for them to ‘prioritise’ a single thing. Grandiose statements such as “Council is asking residents to express their views via a survey” (from website) ignores the simple fact that there simply is no avenue for residents to write a single word about their views. It is all ‘tick the box’ approach to a predetermined and slanted set of questions.

Following a few demographic questions such as what use do you make of the park and whether the respondent is a resident or trader, the heart of the issue is presented as a series of ‘options’ that residents are requested to grade from 1 (most preferred) to 10 (least preferred). How convenient that ‘cafe’ is first in the alphabet and ‘repair/restore’ comes last!

Here are the relevant questions in the order they are presented:

Please list your preferred options for the Conservatory from 1 to 10 (1=most preferred to 10=least preferred).

Cafe – indoor/outdoor – capacity 50
Cafe/tearooms – indoor/outdoor – capacity 80-100
Children’s garden/playspace
Community room/s
Native/sustainable garden/environmental education hub
Plant nursery
Recreational/exercise area
Remove Conservatory and return to open space
Repair, restore and replant gardens
Other

No real definition of anything is provided nor the implications. If the ‘capacity’ of 80 -100 is chosen as Number 1, then what does this mean in terms of ‘footprint’ of the ‘café’. How much open space will be lost to accommodate this number since it is certain that the current conservatory size will never be capable of seating this number within its walls. And exactly what is a ‘café’? Will full meals be served? Will the place remain open until late at night? Will there be a liquor license? And what of toilets/sewerage, kitchens, loading bays, parking and general access? Will we have roads built into the park to enable access for all service deliveries? How much more land will be lost? How many trees will be placed in jeopardy?

Asking residents to ‘prioritise’ when they have absolutely no idea of what it is they are prioritising is devious, deceptive, and deliberately misleading. Yet, council has no qualms in spending ratepayers’ money on glossy, meaningless ‘surveys’ if they know it will get the Lipshutz’s of this world the result that he and the other ‘conservatives’ want!

Another issue – apart from the question of using public open space for commercial purposes – : who will pay for this ‘redevelopment’? Will council outfit the place and then simply lease it to some commercial operator as it has done with the café at GESAC for the princely sum of over $300,000? Will Council and therefore ratepayers pay for sewerage connections? Will we pay for access roads or will the lessee have to cover ALL the costs?

We reiterate! None of the answers to these questions have been included in the bogus ‘survey’. It is akin to asking people to vote on something that they have no idea of what they’re voting for. Only when residents can evaluate the options based on a full understanding of what they actually mean can we call this ‘consultation’. Only when residents are offered the opportunity to actually express their individual views as they wish, can we have any faith in any of the ‘consultation process’ that this council introduces.

June 29, 2013

News Flash: Is All 100% Kosher?

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

We have learnt that the Alma Club application has already been sent off to VCAT PRE-EMPTING, in all probability, any council resolution on Tuesday night. Why? Because Council did not finalise the application within the required 60 day limit.

This is both extraordinary and inexcusable and, in our view, raises serious questions about process, and potential secret deals that may have to ability to completely sideline both councillors and resident objectors. To refresh people’s memories here are the facts:

The application was received by Council on the 19^th March 2013 according to the planning register.
It was not until EARLY MAY that the yellow notice went up. Residents had until 14^th May to register their objections. That makes it roughly 6 weeks that Council sat on this application before presumably doing anything about it or informing residents.
A planning conference was held on the June 5^th.
The item was set down for decision this coming Tuesday – the 2^nd July.

There cannot be any excuse for this inaction, especially since Council would have been fully aware of the contentious nature of the application and its value in monetary terms. All stops should have been pulled out to ensure that the time limits were adhered to. Why weren’t they? What are the possible outcomes for the current situation – given that we’ve learnt that mediation and a 5 day VCAT hearing has been timetabled for several months down the track? Several potential scenarios now rear their ugly heads:

Any possible councillor resolution on Tuesday night is now a moot point and probably won’t go ahead
The developer ‘in consultation’ with officers will either submit amended plans directly to VCAT, or again in consultation with officers work out various ‘conditions’. In both cases the parameters will be set and both residents and councillors will not have a say.
Since a permit has not been granted, the prospect of ‘amended plans’ coming to a full council is most unlikely.

All of these scenarios raise serious questions about governance within Glen Eira; the role of the planning department and most importantly, who knew what and when. For example:

When did council officers know that the developers would be going to VCAT?
When did officers know or decide that the 60 day limit could not be met?
Do councillors know? Or do some councillors know since we’ve been informed that one particular councillor has been telling objectors to forget about appealing since VCAT will overrule anyway?
Even MP Southwick has got in on the act with an offer of ‘mediation’! Why, and what does he know that residents possibly don’t?
Why didn’t this well paid planning department get its act together on time?
Was this ‘delay’ in fact planned right from the start?
What ‘discussions’ went on between developer and planners? How often? When did these ‘discussions’ start?
Was there ever any discussion about time lines?
Has any officer actually kept records of these meetings and/or discussions as required under the Records Act?

There are many, many, other such questions – all of which only cement the already existing perception that all is not 100% kosher within Glen Eira– especially when it comes to planning matters!

June 28, 2013

Agenda Items: Plagiarism & Secrecy!

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

ALMA CLUB APPLICATION

As expected, the officer’s (Ron Torres) report recommends that a permit be issues for “up to 73 dwellings in an apartment style 3 storey building and townhouse style development of 2-3 storeys above basement car parking and a reduction in visitor car parking requirements….”. There were 58 formal objections.

It is worth commenting that this report contains much that is taken verbatim from the developer’s application. As to lighting and internal amenity there does not seem to be any problem in having people live underground – “It is considered the ground floor north facing apartments will have poor solar access as their floor level is substantially lower than the ground level at the northern boundary. Their living room windows are also substantially overhung by the balconies above. Therefore a condition is recommended to setback the first floor balconies to improve the amenity of these dwellings”.

On traffic and its impact on local and adjoining streets we have this: “…the expected traffic generation can be considered in the context of the traffic generated by the Alma Club (when it was operational). Therefore, whilst there will be a noticeable increase in traffic during residential peak times (ie weekday mornings), there will also likely be less traffic at other times when the Alma Club would have generated traffic, such as weekends. Furthermore, Council’s Transport Planning Department is satisfied Wilks Street can accommodate the traffic generated by the development. On balance it is considered an increase in traffic movements within Wilks Street as a result of this development is not unreasonable”.

Not one statistic to support any of the statements! And since when does 5 days of traffic twice a day compare to a declining club membership that is assessed only on weekends? Nor is there any mention of the major arterial roads that run off Wilks St and the safety issues involved. The only change that is advantageous to the community is the recommendation that a 5% open space levy be paid by the developer instead of the 4.75% that had been ‘agreed’ to previously.

All in all another dodgy officer’s report without substance, detail, and a far too heavy reliance on the proposal as submitted by developers. Surely when the community pays their wages it is not too much to expect that officer reports show some initiative and originality plus, providing a substantiated rationale for their decision making that is not authored by the developer.

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

First off we note that the online version of agenda has repeated one of the ‘minutes’ – meaning that one document is missing! The trend of secrecy continues unabated however. Notations included in these documents reveal that important issues that will have a major impact on the community HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED but not one word has come out into the public domain concerning these issues. For example:

Residential zones – at least 3 times
Referendum of Constitutional Recognition of local government
MAV state conference – list of motions. Again residents have no idea of council’s position on any of the proposed motions.
There’s another couple of interesting items that read – “Cr Hyams – letter to the editor in the Australian Jewish News from a Labor Federal member of Parliament. Need for a Council response to correct the record.” AND – “Cr Hyams – draft letter to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust relating to members of the public attending and addressing the Trust.” (Please note that Delahunty had raised this issue in a previous meeting); “Cr Hyams – a meeting of the non MRC Trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.”
GESAC and dispute resolution also gets a nod as well as in the Audit Committee report.

Finally it’s worth mentioning the item recommending the rescission of the Sustainability Policy and enacting a new policy. We have noted several times in the past that the arguments put forward by Hyams and Burke (when it suited them) was that nothing could be done UNLESS IT WAS CONTAINED IN THE MEETING PROCEDURES. There is no facility in the meeting procedures for a rescission of motion! If the argument is to be applied consistently, then this recommendation cannot proceed. But of course in this council we can only expect some glib sleight of hand to justify actions that suit the ultimate objectives!

PS: Also along familiar lines there is Newton’s report on the latest Community Satisfaction Survey. The entire report is NOT included in the agenda papers. Rather we’re told that it is available on council’s website. Unfortunately to locate the report will involve a ‘hide and seek’ expedition! The vital aspect of the survey focuses on residents’ expectations as to service performance and their grading of this performance. Below is the relevant information and we point out that once again the huge discrepancy between what residents consider as important and their evaluation of the actual service.

PPS: We’ve commented on this previously but given the deceptive reporting of the VCAT decisions it is worth re-iterating. For the 20 Hawthorn Rd application which was overturned by VCAT, council writes:

“Council determined to refuse the application as it failed to satisfy the intent and objectives of the Minimal Change Area Policy, in terms of excessive visual bulk and poor interface with the adjoining residential properties. The development
also failed to satisfy a number of the ResCode standards ‘.

Not only is this entirely disingenuous, but not does represent what the member actually concluded. In fact, Council itself ‘stuffed up’ big time. It did not even know the areas that were Minimal Change as opposed to Housing Diversity. Here’s what the member concluded:

There is little doubt in my mind that the subject land is in a housing diversity area under local planning policy. As the purpose of local planning policies is to give effect to the municipal strategic statement (MSS),^[1] it is relevant to start with the MSS. The MSS includes a Framework Plan the purpose of which is to ‘support and promote’ specific land use outcomes.^[2] The Framework Plan, although indicative, includes the subject land as an area along a tram route where ‘multi unit development will be encouraged’.^[3] The MSS adopts a targeted approach to meeting future housing needs. It encourages multi-unit housing in identified housing diversity areas. Land along tram routes is a housing diversity area.
The housing diversity area policy confirms the subject land is in a tram routes housing diversity area, having regard to the Glen Eira ‘policy framework plan’ and the Caulfield North ‘Framework Plan’.^[4] I will return the specifics of the tram routes policy shortly.
That the subject land is in a housing diversity area is confirmed by the minimal change area policy.^[5] The policy was recently remade with amendments in Amendment C87 of the scheme (C87). The Council exhibited C87 before deciding this permit application. In the ‘Policy Framework Plan Minimal Change Areas’ map in the scheme when C87 was exhibited and in C87 shows the subject land not in a minimal change area. C87 was approved and commenced on 31 January 2013 and after the Council decided the permit application. It did not change the identification of the subject land as in a minimal change area in that map. In other words, C87 has not changed the identification of the subject land as not being in a minimal change area.
I refer to this history because the Council assessed the permit application as if the relevant policy was the minimal change area policy rather than the housing diversity area policy. This was an error. The Council has now decided that the identification of the subject land as not in a minimal change area for policy purposes was a ‘mapping error within clause 22.08 mistakenly introduced in Amendment C87’,^[6] and has prepared Amendment C108 to correct the ‘error’.

June 25, 2013

Alma Club & ‘Concept Plans’

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

The Alma Club application for 75 units raises countless questions about process and the planning scheme itself. Here are a few:

Why should developers be allowed to submit CONCEPT PLANS that are vague and wishy-washy? Why should council planners then decide on the basis of such plans? Or could it possibly be that the developer is expecting some major changes that will then become the endorsed plans which will not be in the public domain – especially if these ‘new plans’ come within cooee (30%) of what is currently envisaged? That is, some sweetheart little deals between applicant and council?
Even if there is an appeal to VCAT, then there is the problem of amended plans, or council’s position – which will not feature in the public domain and certainly not go before council again. As with the C60, there is a proposal, but no real detail.
What also needs to be borne in mind is that if councillors agree to a downsizing on Tuesday night and objectors appeal this decision then the newly announced VCAT fees could be extremely expensive. Again, the developer is in the box seat! Councillors of course will then have their usual scapegoat – VCAT – and they come up smelling like roses instead of addressing the crux of the matter – ie the deficient and suspect planning scheme!

We’ve been forwarded these ‘concept plans’. Below are some extracts taken verbatim from these documents. The comments, conclusions and developerspeak are truly amazing!

The proposed development includes the construction of a medium density residential complex comprising a four storey residential apartment building, 17 two storey townhouses and 8 three storey townhouses with associated parking and landscaping.

The existing site levels provide the ability to achieve higher built form elements in parts of the site without any off-site amenity impacts. Different residential building typologies exist as part of the character of the area, and the introduction of an integrated medium density development would contribute to housing diversity in the area.

With regard to the relocation of the existing telecommunications facility, an indicative new location is shown on the roof of the building.

The subject site is greater than 7,000 sqm, and it is more than three times the 2,000sqm threshold noted above. The proposal also removes an existing non-residential use. For these reasons, it is considered reasonable and appropriate to pursue the type of development being proposed.

More specifically, the proposal will:

Deliver a greater diversity of housing;
Improve and protect the liveability, neighbourhood character and amenity of the area;
Promote environmental and social sustainability;
Assist in stimulating the viability of the Alma Village neighbourhood activity centre; and
Integrate with the existing neighbourhood

Turning to the provision of private open space, a schedule of areas is provided at Attachement 3. This demonstrates courtyard sizes for the townhouses ranging between 41.5sqm and 136sqm with the average being 61.96sqm. The Schedule to the Residnetial 1 Zone recommends provate open space provisions for dwelling in the Minimal Change Area of 60sqm, and therefore the average provision is considered acceptable.

Today’s Caulfield Leader also featured this article:

Resident ire over plans

Glen Eira residents opposed to development plans for the Alma Sports Club in Caulfield North have formed an association and are raising a war chest to take their fight to VCAT.

They have registered the name Glen Eira Residents Against Inappropriate Development Inc with Consumer Arrairs Victoria, and are looking for moral and financial support.

Committee spokeswoman Vardit Sacks-Davis said the association was formed in response to the Wilks St permit application. The group’s long-term plan beyond that was not yet clear.

“Our aim is to protect, and advocate for, the rights of Glen Eira when threatened by inappropriate development,” she said. Monark Pty Ltd lodged a permit application with Glen Eira council seeking to demolish the historic Alma Sports Club and replace it with a four-storey apartment building with 50 apartments and 25 two and three-storey townhouses. The 7100sq m site is in a minimal change area.

Director Bill Michaelides told the Leader his team had taken a “very balanced approach” but residents maintained it was inappropriate “for many reasons”.

“If this goes to VCAT we intend to fight it there as well so it could be veryk expensive,” Ms Vardit Sacks-Davis said.

Email the group at almaclubobjectors@gmail.com

June 24, 2013

Agenda: Budget, Council Plan & Open Space

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

There are several items of interest for the Special Council Meeting on Tuesday night –

As expected no real changes to the ‘draft’ budget and strategic resource documents. In other words, the recommendations and requests from residents have once more fallen on deaf ears.
Worse still is that no thorough explanation is provided for fee hikes. One recent public question queried why aged care residential bonds should jump an incredible $100,000 in one hit. The answer? – in line with the average for private operations. Questions as to fee increases for child care, also received the silent treatment.
Community plan (circa 2011) remains untouched except for an ‘addendum’ that is tacked on about 2011 census figures. No attempt to integrate these latest figures with what was written nearly 3 years ago!

Open Space Policy

Half a page is all that Glen Eira can produce as far as ‘policy’ goes on this issue.
Yes, open space levies will now be used for the acquisition of further open space, and/or its ‘development’, but this includes the Booran Road Reservoir which won’t have a penny spent on it until at least 2015/16. In fact the entire budgeted amount for the next financial year in this category is the development of Elsternwick Park at a measly $250,000.
Not a word about increasing the open space levy to at least 5% across all areas of the municipality when land is subdivided. Nor has this council made any attempt to introduce an amendment to give such a policy legal effect. Other councils such as Bayside, Stonnington, Port Phillip and many, many others already have such amendments passed or well on the way. The likely excuse for this inaction is that council is awaiting the Open Space Strategy Review! Reviews and Amendments are not mutually exclusive – the process should have been initiated years ago if the intent was to really ensure that developers paid their fair share.

Defined Benefits Scheme

Here’s the Swabey recommendation –

“That Council endorses the repayment of the defined benefit call ($7.120mil) by June

2015 in accordance with the following schedule:

– 2012-13 – $2.4mil by 30 June 2013;

– 2013-14 – $2.4mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2014; and

– 2014-15 – $2.32mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2015”.

We draw readers’ attention to the fact that here is an official council document that spectacularly fails to declare both the AMOUNT AND RATE OF INTEREST that residents will be forced to pay. We can only speculate as to where and how these sums will be buried in any further official documents.

As for up front disclosure of monies the ‘declaration of rates and charges’ is another case in point. On the issue of pensioner rebate all that we’re told is: Council Pensioner Rebate -$0.557M AND It be recorded that Council grants to each ratepayer who is an “eligible recipient”within the meaning of the State Concessions Act 2004 a combined rebate up to a maximum of $270 (being an amount contributed by State Government & Council) in respect of that land. Hence there is no admission of exactly how much Council is contributing and whether or not this subsidy has risen, declined, or remained static.

Port Phillip is far more forthcoming with its equivalent agenda item –

The City of Port Phillip offers a council rebate of up to $144.00 in addition to the State Government Rebate of $202.90 to all eligible pension card holders. (Agenda items – 25^th June 2013)

On the actual rate increase itself, Glen Eira writes only in terms of the cents in the dollar. Anything to help disguise the fact that it’s another 6.5% increase. Port Phillip states clearly – The proposed rate in the dollar will result in an increase of 4.5% in Council’s rate in the dollar.

Whilst these last examples might be seen as trivial, we believe that they represent the entire approach of a council determined to continually downplay all the potential ‘negatives’ and to make it as difficult as possible for residents to decipher what is really happening.

June 21, 2013

Danby Vs Lipshutz & Kuran

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

Source: Australian Jewish News, June 21, page 23

A cheap misguided shot by Danby

Michael Danby’s blaming of the “conservative” councillors for AJAX not being awarded the Princes Park allocation seems to be a shameful display of ignorance and politics.

Given there are nine councillors, of whom three are Labor and two are Greens, Danby must be referring to the four independent councillors – as “Conservative” and “Liberals”.

If Danby is truly interested in AJAX playing at Princes Park he should direct the three Labor councillors, including his protégé Cr Delahunty, to support a fair spots ground allocation policy so that there might be a successful outcome for AJAX.

Danby is politically opportunistic by blaming the Jewish councillors for AJAX not being awarded the Princes Park allocation and then misleadingly linking the decision to the Liberal Party by incorrectly labelling the Jewish councillors as Liberals.

This is despite each of us running as independents and not receiving support from any political party – unlike Labour and Green candidates.

Danby’s ignorance of local politics is hardly surprising, given that he has not attended one council meeting in the eight years I have been a councillor.

Taking cheap shots at council officers and Jewish councillors who work hard representing Jewish community interests and the interests of all Glen Eira residents is easy.

Rather than “turfing out” the Jewish councillors, Danby should explain how the Laor government’s recent decision not supporting Israel in the UN is not evidence of his irrelevance and lack of influence within the Labor Party and not reason enough to vote him out in September.

MICHAEL LIPSHUTZ

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

Danby is playing petty party politics

I hadn’t realised how concerned Michael Danby was that he might lose his seat until I saw his letter because it is clearly the work of a desperate politician clutching at straws.

Clearly, accurate counting is not a trait of the ALP. He attributes what he sees as the Glen Eira Council’s ills to the Liberal Party, but only three of the nine councillors are Liberals.

There are also three ALP members and two members of the Greens, and one independent.

As a member of the ALP/Greens coalition in Canberra, perhaps Mr Danby’s desire to influence local government would be better served speaking to the ALP/Greens majority on the Glen Eira Council.

However, I’m suyre the majority of ratepayers would prefer party politics were kept out of local government and would not appreciate Danby trying to politicise the council, or giving highly questionable and self-serving analysis of council processes.

They would also expect to see a federal MP show greater concern about council governance, especially after what the Victorian Ombudsman had to say about the Labor-dominated Brimbank Council in 2009, when its councillors got improperly involved in sports ground allocations.

Instead, Danby seems to be trying to encourage our councillors to repeat the misconduct that ultimately saw the Labor state government forced to sack that council.

I would love to see AJAX playing at Princes Park, but I doubt Danby’s ham-fisted approach would do anyting to help that cause.

He should try to do something constructive rather than playing petty party politics.

BERNIE KURAN

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates