GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

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

June 20, 2013

Oh What A Difference!

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

Hearty congratulations to Kingston City Council on their first public forum regarding the planning zone reforms. About 35 people were present tonight including the Mayor, one other councillor, plus 3 strategic planners and a full time mapping officer. Kingston had obviously gone to great lengths to ensure that information was freely available to residents – ie. the walls were plastered with maps, full colour booklets of 12 pages, and draft amendments including the all important schedules.

The Mayor introduced the evening and his focus throughout the 5 minute talk was that NO DECISION on anything had been made. That Kingston’s intent was to firstly inform their residents of the dramatic planning changes and to seek their input. All questions would be answered and there would be multiple forms of consultation – mailouts, website, council newspapers, advertisements, online discussion forums, etc. Residents had 6 weeks to consider all the information and then council would go away and draft its amendments. Another consultation would then follow before any final decision was made.

The Manager of Strategic Planning then provided a formal presentation with Powerpoint slides. The current Kingston planning scheme was explained as well as what the proposed changes meant for the city. The most striking features of the evening, apart from the genuine desire to inform and consult, were:

The extent of detailed local analyses that Kingston had already undertaken. Maps showed each suburb and included a breakdown of every single development – ie single house, 2 units, multi-units etc.
The projected population figures and the preferred locations – for example: areas that lacked public transport would be unlikely to be included in ‘growth zones’

The real highlight was the acknowledgement that there was tremendous flexibility available to councils to determine the future of their municipalities. All would depend on the schedules that accompanied each specific zone. In other words, the devil would be in the detail. Councils had the options of:

Determining height limits for specific locations
Determining setbacks
Determining permeability
Determining private open space
Determining Landscaping
Determining site coverage

Structure plans were another tool that assisted in the protection of specific areas.

All in all, the evening was a true eye opener to how different Kingston is to Glen Eira – both in objective and in performance. Unlike Glen Eira, public comment is actively, and we believe, genuinely sought. Further, the extent of the work already done by these officers is literally mind boggling. We can only ask our illustrious lot: why the 9 months of silence and when will they let the public in on what is going on? How much work on population and available lots has been done? Will residents really be informed and consulted, or fobbed off with half-truths and waffle? We wait with bated breath!

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that Kingston claims to have very few of their planning decisions overturned. The reason? Because they have done their homework and ensured that their neighourhoods are holistically planned – in total contrast to the ad hoc and open slather approach of Glen Eira!

June 19, 2013

Hyams: Can We Believe Him?

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

The alleged comments by Hyams in this article raise major issues.

Why should residents believe him or his script writers?
Why is this council doing absolutely nothing in contrast to other councils, much less informing the public in a clear, direct and honest manner about its intentions and the real ramifications of what will happen from July 1^st and in the coming year?
Is this the most potent example of not merely fiddling whilst Rome is burning, but the clear intention of doing absolutely nothing to review, change or modify a strategic planning approach that is clearly incapable of protecting residents?
Could anything be clearer than the refusal to change a damn thing, since according to Hyams, ‘council was happy’ with the residential zones?

Below we feature some extracts from the agenda items for the next Kingston Council Ordinary Meeting. Not only is there a lengthy officer report on the implications of the commercial zone changes from July 1^st, but actions to try and ameliorate the potential damage (uploaded here). In Glen Eira all we get is silence, inaction, and misinformation!

With a Planning Permit previously prohibited locations can be used to create multiple Supermarket(s), shop(s) or Department Store(s).

The zoning translation, if not carefully managed at residential abuttals, also has the potential to create adverse amenity impacts with the ability of incompatible land uses to establish without a planning permit.

A Supermarket under 1800m2 or shop under 500m2 associated with or adjoining a Supermarket can be constructed without a Planning Permit. The definition of Shop also includes Bottle Shop. This would mean that beyond issues of policy matters such as loading times, hours of operation or other management issues associated with facilities that may impact on amenity of adjacent residential areas would not be able to be considered.

Businesses of all sizes have made investment decision in the City of Kingston based on the Local Planning Policy Frameowrk and the application of zones. These decisions for numerous business owners have the potential to be immediately and directly undermined through the application of the Commercial 2 Zone in location where certain activities where(sic) previously prohibited.

…it has also been necessary to consider that if the Commercial 2 zone were applied what levels of amenity protection would be provided for immediately adjacent or nearby residential areas when compared with the status quo.

The work of successive council’s (sic) in developing Structure Plans, Local Planning Policies, facilitating retail investment in planned locations and assisting diversifying its employment land will be undermined if the Commercial 2 Zone is introduced to replace the large areas in Kingston zoned Business 3 and 4.

Uses that are permissible under the Commercial 2 Zone such as Supermarket(s), Shop(s) and Department Store(s) that were previously prohibited will impact on small businesses that have invested in planned locations and on community service and infrastructure investment provided in Activity Centres.

The unintended consequence of the introduction of the commercial 2 Zone, is that land uses which Council’s Local Planning Policies clearly discourage in ‘out of centre locations’, become as of right or permissible.

June 16, 2013

Gardener’s Road Trees: Here Yesterday – Gone Today!

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

As we predicted the 80 – 100 foot gum that had its roots ripped out to make way for a $600,000 car park has now gone into the dustbin of history. Below we feature some of our earlier photos and the carnage that has (unnecessarily we believe) been wrought. Another huge gum along this stretch of redevelopment will, we believe, go the same way. Questions must be asked and answered about what is utter and total negligence and incompetence:

What precautions did council take to ensure the survival of these trees? Did they in fact give a damn?
Did the right hand (ie contractors) know what the left hand (arborists?) required to ensure survival? Was there any discussion preceding the commencement of works? Where is this documented?
What is the monetary value of these trees and how much will it cost to come within cooeee of a replacement?
What does this episode reveal about this council’s transparency and accountability when neither the officers’ report nor one single councillor had the integrity to state that open space would be lost and that mature and valuable trees would be hacked to pieces? And why weren’t residents “consulted” much less any traffic analysis provided?

HERE’S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW

June 16, 2013

Community Plan Versus Council Plan

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

No submissions were received on the ‘Community/Council Plan’ or the Strategic Resource Plan. Here’s what the councillors said.

LIPSHUTZ: noted that no submissions were received on the Council Plan and Strategic Resource plan so the ‘motion’ stands.

DELAHUNTY: Began by saying that in Glen Eira the terms Council Plan and Community Plan were interchangeable and that she ‘disagrees with this practice’. Said that the ‘community plan is the community plan’ and the council plan is a ‘separate document to that’. The council plan ‘outlines’ what council ‘intends to do’ but it’s based on community ideas of ‘what we should be doing’. Went on to say that if they had done it like other councils then maybe there would have been some submissions. Thought that ‘it is confusing’ the way it is presented ‘at the moment’ and ‘not in step with any other council’ and that ‘we are underselling ourselves’ if council doesn’t believe it can ‘strategically plan out our term in office’. Supported the motion because it is ‘true’ that there were no submissions but she doesn’t support the process that lead to the motion.

HYAMS: Said that he liked calling what was going to be done for the community the ‘community plan’ rather than ‘council plan’. Said that what council does is ‘put them both together and incorporate’ what the community wants into the council plan. Didn’t think that ‘having this delineation’ stopped people from putting in submissions and that people weren’t that ‘pedantic’. Whilst ‘disappointing’ that no submissions were forwarded that this could be seen as ‘a vote of confidence from the public’ and that ‘people tend to be more involved in things they’re not happy with’. Said that council would ‘continue to consult with the community’ and that they would ‘take on board anything they tell us’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates