GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 8, 2013

Measuring The ‘Measures’

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

We’ve commented previously on council’s so called ‘Action Plan’ and the simple fact that there is absolutely no correlation between the objectives, actions, and ‘measures’. This follows on after repeated reports by the Auditor General and the reporting standards of councils – how there is a reliance on OUTPUTS rather than OUTCOMES and how so very little of budgets contain well worded rationales and data to substantiate the various claims.

In this post we will focus on the Town Planning & Development set of objectives since this has been repeatedly highlighted as a major concern by residents.

OBJECTIVE	ACTION	MEASURE
Plan for a mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in different stages of their life-cycle within the City.	Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals	Ensure Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies are working by directing most dwellings to Housing Diversity

COMMENTS

If council was fair dinkum then the measure would state something along the lines of ‘report statistics on the number of 1, 2 and 3+ bedroom dwellings and their location within both the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change Areas’. Further, it is a bit hard to ‘plan for a ‘mixture of housing’ or enforcing a policy that ‘encourages’ 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings when there is no Urban Design Framework and no such prescriptive clauses within the Planning Scheme. Needless to say there is no information provided on how these objectives and the associated policies are to be evaluated! Revealing that 65% of new dwellings go into Housing Diversity says nothing about the number of bedrooms in each dwelling!

OBJECTIVE	ACTION	MEASURE
Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process.	Promote Council’s suite of fast track permit application processes.	Report to Council, year on year, the percentage of applications using fast track process.

COMMENT

Strange how ‘encouraging’ ‘community involvement’ is limited to only one aspect of the planning process – fast tracking of the application, which of course is designed to assist developers and applicants rather than the broader community. We also have to scratch our heads and wonder how on earth the ‘reporting’ of PERCENTAGES can in any shape or form be interpreted as a policy designed to ‘encourage’ involvement! Both the actions and the measures we maintain are totally unrelated to the objective!

OBJECTIVE	ACTION	MEASURE
Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process	Improve the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) efficiency by reducing the number of planning application needing to be referred for a decision by undertaking mediation	Undertake ten (10) mediation meetings

COMMENT

Suddenly ‘fair transparent and inclusive’ is reduced to mere ‘efficiency’. If the underlying philosophy of pro-development remains the same then ‘efficiency’ is no indication of ‘fair, transparent and inclusive’. Further, 10 mediation meetings provides no measurable outcome nor even a sizeable proportion of applications. And what if all of these ‘mediation’ meetings are failures –will the public be informed as to the outcomes of such meetings? In our view, ‘fair, transparent and inclusive’ must involve the promise that:

All objectors will be informed of amended plans and council’s position within the legal timeframe. This has not occurred on numerous occasions
That objectors learn of officer’s determination not on the Friday before a council meeting where the decision will be made, but at least a week ahead so that they have the opportunity to acquaint themselves fully with the logic of the officer’s report and to contact their councillor representatives
That objectors are fully informed of their rights and the processes involved and that councillors do not attempt to abort discussions and questions as has again been the case on various occasions at Planning Conferences.

OBJECTIVE	ACTION	MEASURE
Undertake community consultation and engagement to ensure the Glen Eira Municipal Strategic Statement, Glen Eira Planning Scheme and town planning process meets the needs of local residents and ratepayers.	Survey participants in the Delegated Planning Committee process to ascertain satisfaction rates	80% satisfaction rating of participants in the DPC process

COMMENT

This has to be our favourite from the list because of its total nonsense. If the objective is to ‘undertake community consultation’ to ensure that the Planning Scheme and its associated processes are in line with ‘needs’ and expectations of residents, then limiting ‘consultation’ to mere SURVEYS of only ONE ASPECT of the planning process is entirely ludicrous. Consultation involves more than a ‘survey’ – especially when the questions asked remain top secret and are never published! One might then well ask why only 80% and who are the most ‘satisfied’ in this sham ‘consultation’ – the applicant or the objector?

The planning scheme was last reviewed in 2010. Three years later we are still awaiting half of the promised actions to materialise. To the best of our knowledge no ‘community consultation’ has occurred since then although the oft cited community satisfaction survey reveals year after year major DISSATISFACTION with planning in Glen Eira.

The take home message from this community plan is that there is no intention of changing anything. It is full steam ahead to what we believe is the detriment of the community. The least that ratepayers should expect is that when a community plan is funded and devised that the measures, actions and objectives are worth the paper they are written on.

May 6, 2013

The Alma Club: Bye Bye Open Space!

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

PS: As a footnote to the entire issue of planning and the failure of this council to not only implement but have any strategic vision for the city, we thought that residents would be interested in the following comments from one VCAT member in a recent decision. This concerns a Dudley St application which has been making the rounds for nigh on 6 years. The area is listed as MINIMAL CHANGE, yet application after application has been rubber stamped for 5 storey student accommodation and other developments. Here’s what the member stated in his decision –

It is perhaps unfortunate that the future of this area is being considered on an ad hoc basis through multiple permits and amendments to permits when the locality has offered a real opportunity for a strategic planning exercise to acknowledge the land’s relationship to the Phoenix Precinct and other attributes. Sadly, the street interface along Gibson Street with garages, a substation and an extensive area of encased fire services, is an example, in my view, of a lost opportunity to achieve a quality and integrated solution for an area that could have had a much higher level of street amenity. Having said that, there is a strategic context provided by the Scheme within which decisions about individual applications can be made and the lack of a specific position in policy about the area’s future direction does not provide a reason to refuse the current amendment request.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/512.html

May 6, 2013

When Is A ‘Report’ Not A Report?

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

What does ‘Report to Council’ mean, especially when part of a proposed ‘Action Plan’ that is the foundation of a Community/Council Plan? In other councils such a phrase would be self evident – ie an officer’s report tabled and discussed at an ordinary council meeting. Not in Glen Eira. Here it can mean anything and everything, including disappearing entirely and never to be heard of again.

We’ve compared the 2012/2013 Action Plan against the objectives for the coming financial year and there are indeed some strange goings on. Apart from the usual humbug of measures not having anything whatsoever to do with objectives, there are many ‘reports to council’ which never saw the light of day in a transparent and accountable fashion. Perhaps they never even landed in the hands of councillors behind those tightly closed doors? Here is just a sample and we cite verbatim:

Review and update council policy ‘Exclusion of Specific Developments’ from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme to implement measures to ensure multi-dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking. MEASURE: Report a revised policy to Council.
Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan. MEASURE: Report provided to Council.(We note that on June 28^th 2011 this was removed from the Planning Scheme. This also applies to the ‘Transition Zone’ policy which we discover is now ‘on hold’)
Council Engagement Strategy and consultation processes reviewed. MEASURE: Engagement strategy updated and posted on Council’s website. (Please note that the Engagement strategy was last looked at by council on the 11^th October 2011. Not only hasn’t this been revisited since but the full policy is nowhere to be found on Council’s website. What is up there is the pathetic little ‘6 steps’ which date back to at least 2009).

There are many, many more omissions and changes that the current Community Plan does not even mention or account for. Residents should not have to scour through the fine print in order to discover what is truly happening. Nor should secrecy and the pathetic games of semantics replace transparency and good governance. When the stated outcome is ‘report provided to council’ that must mean one thing only – a full and comprehensive document that is produced in the agenda for ordinary council meetings. We repeat ourselves ad nauseum – secrecy is the opposite of good governance, transparency and accountability.

May 3, 2013

The Budget

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

This is our first preliminary look at the proposed budget. It is admittedly a very pleasant surprise that the rate increase will be kept to 6.5%. It is however worth pointing out the rate increases at neighbouring councils –

Manningham – 4.8%

Whitehorse – 4.1%

Kingston – 4.45%

Port Phillip – 4.5%

Bayside – 3.5%

Stonnington – 4.3%

Boroondara – 4.7%

SUPERANNUATION LIABILITY

Glen Eira has decided on the following strategy – “ The Defined Benefit Superannuation Call will be paid off over three years (before the next Review comes into effect) without reducing services of capital investment or increasing Rates”. This is presented as $2.4 million repayment the coming financial year and then $2.3 for the following 2 years. We do not know the interest rate on this debt!

Other councils have opted for different strategies and their comments are worthy of note –

Council’s Budget and Strategic Resource Plan shows that Council has forecast to borrow $7.90 million during 2013/14 to repay a liability Council has to the Vision Super Fund for a shortfall in earnings by Vision Super to meet its actuarial forecast for payments to defined benefits superannuants. This borrowing is consistent with the Financial Strategy as the alternative to borrowing is a debt repayment schedule offered by Vision Super with an effective interest rate of 8.82%: bank loans are lower than the Vision Super rate and therefore are an economic alternative. (Manningham)

The increase in net cash inflows from operating activities is primarily due Council paying $9.78 million to Vision Super in August 2012, being the discounted call amount for Council’s share of the Local Authorities Superannuation Defined Benefits Scheme liability shortfall.

In August 2012 the Local Government Defined Benefit Superannuation Scheme sent us an invoice for $14.3 million to cover our share of the shortfall in employee superannuation. It is payable immediately after 1 July 2013. This impost presents us with a major financial challenge not of our own making. While a likely shortfall was noted in last year’s budget the actual amount was well beyond what we expected. Because we don’t keep that sort of surplus cash in the bank, we will borrow to repay the liability in full – taking advantage of the relatively low interest rates currently available. In addition, we will repay the loan in just five years at an annual cost of $3.3 million. This strategy will save ratepayers over $9 million in interest compared to a standard twenty year loan. Our rate rise this year could have been a little lower but the savings we achieve with our approach will give the community a much better result (Boroondara).

There’s therefore much that is not revealed. Is Glen Eira ‘borrowing’ from the Vision Fund at 8.82% per annum? Did they investigate any cheaper bank loans? Would any bank even give them a loan since recent borrowings totalled $25 million? Clearly Glen Eira was never in a position to pay out up front. The result is probably millions in further interest repayments.

FEES AND CHARGES

Many of GESAC user costs have increased. What impact will this have on membership and attendance? Why the need for these increases? Isn’t this a case of killing the goose that laid the golden egg? Is this why there’s the neat little rider in the budget about handing control to increase prices to the Manager of GESAC?
Bin charges go up and up again – 240 litre bin up by another $17 to $377 pa and the 120 litre bin up by $8 to $173 pa.
Child care fees up again – $5 per day for 3 to 5 year olds to $100 per day.
No figure provided for council’s actual contribution to pensioner rebate. Has it gone down?
Staff numbers keep increasing – another $5million in staff costs and numbers up by 28 for EFT

OPEN SPACE

There’s a welcome addition in terms of open space via the statement: “As part of the current budget process, Council will adopt a Policy that all Public Open Space Contributions will be used solely for the acquisition of additional public open space or the upgrading of additional public open space for community use. Contributions would not be spent on existing open space. (Additional open space includes the disused Glen Huntly Reservoir)….In 2013-14, the Budget provides $250K for the upgrading of Elsternwick Plaza, owned by VicTrack”.

The budget also contains this plan – $5 million in 2015/6 and $4.5 million in 2016/17 for the Booran Rd Reservoir. Last year the budget papers had it down as – 4 million in 2017/18 and 3.5 million in 2018/19. So, the ‘redevelopment’ has been moved forward a year or so, but the estimated cost has escalated another 1.5 million. In other words, all that has been gained by this ‘policy’ is not MORE open space in the next financial year but some neat account balancing.

We ask: is the above more sleight of hand, especially since only $250,000 has been made available in the upcoming financial year. What happens if a property does suddenly become available? Will council even consider its purchase?

This is our most important comment however. Council estimates that the open space levies for the coming year will only bring in $2 million. Last year the figure was $1.9 million. Given that there are over 1000 subdivisions in Glen Eira per year, and at least 20 to 30% of these would be for 3 subdivisions and more, then an increase of a piddling $100,000 is quite unbelievable. So how many developers are thus being let off the hook? And why is there no mention of the potential increase in the open space levy given that countless other councils are exacting at least 5% across all of their municipalities.

We will comment further in the days ahead once we’ve had a chance to go through the budget in greater detail.

PS: there is one current ‘innovation’ in this budget that rears its head for the first time. In all previous budgets Council saw fit to include after each category the FINAL FINANCIAL FIGURES for that category in the User Fees & Charges – for example: “Total Asset Management”; “Total Glen Works”; “Total Property and Facilities” etc. This year, no such figures are provided! Hence residents have absolutely no idea how much revenue is brought in for each of these individual categories. Transparency and accountability have again taken a huge hit, despite the Auditor General’s recent report on the need for councils to justify every single cent in language that is accessible, and comprehensible!

April 29, 2013

The Conservatory: 12 Years Of Neglect!

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

April 26, 2013

Business As Usual!

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

Some very, very interesting items on the agenda!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

Once again it takes 3 council meetings for the Records of Assembly from early March to be placed in the public domain. A few things to note:

On three separate occasions there was the notation that “the CEO left the Room.” Once concerned the CEO KPIs but the other two items stated: “Compliance with the Local Government Act.” What is going on? More lawyers? More expense? More witch hunts? And why is this not recorded as a declared potential ‘conflict of interest’? Surely officers are bound to also declare any potential conflict when certain items come up and that this be accurately reported in the minutes?
On the Centre of the Racecourse, we get this:

“Advised that the invitation to the Mayor of Glen Eira to give a speech on the opening day function for the improvements to the centre of the racecourse had been withdrawn.

Advised that Racing Victoria and not the MRC had funded the MRC’s synthetic training track in the centre of the racecourse.

Cr Hyams further advised that he and Council’s other Trustees on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust were updated on Trust matters.”

BENTLEIGH DEVELOPMENT

Another recommendation to allow 3 storey development, even though the original permit was for 5 dwellings (2×2 bedrooms and 3×3 bedrooms), but this has now doubled to 10 as well as ALL being 2 bedroom! So much for ‘encouraging’ diversity! Notification also leaves a lot to desire – 5 properties notified, 8 notices sent and 47 objections!

CAULFIELD PARK CAFÉ

Back to the drawing boards on this one – or merely the typical council ploy of delaying expenditure until the place is so run down that the argument invariably becomes – demolish and build a café?

QUARTERLY REPORTING

We remind readers that a public question was asked at the council meeting of February 6^th, 2013. It read:

“Currently there is no public reporting of the results of DPC meetings which do not involve appeals to VCAT. In the interests of transparency and full accountability will councillors ensure that the results of all DPC meetings, including property address, planning proposal, and decision, are included in every Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes?” (Minutes of Feb 6th 2013)

Council’s response, included in part the following: “The Quarterly Services Report for 31 March 2013 will contain information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee according to number of dwellings, number of storeys and number of objections.”

It is clear that the gulf between what is stated and what is done are miles apart. The Quarterly Report DOES NOT include ‘information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee’. All it does is present data on those applications which end up at VCAT. Hence, the community still has no idea of how many applications are granted by DPC, their nature, nor the refusal in a format that is clear, accessible, and comprehensive! So much for transparency and accountability.

FINANCIAL REPORT

Not a single word this time about ‘liquidated damages’. Compared to the tedious repetition of the past months this might be seen as an ‘improvement’.
The delaying of various projects (some until 2014/15 budget) – regrassing of ovals, etc.

April 23, 2013

Short Changed – Again & Again!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[36] Comments

Newton, Southwick, and the notorious Special Racecourse Committee should hang their heads in shame or better still, resign! The so-called ‘negotiating’ team has been a total disaster in terms of what they have delivered to the Glen Eira community. The Centre of the Racecourse and the so called ‘agreements’ are not worth a cracker. We maintain that:

This is not a ‘park’ and never will be as long as fences continue to mushroom everywhere
Access remains limited
Terms of the ‘agreement’ are not being met
Playground is NOT a playground
Landscaping is appalling
People would need a GPS system to find their way through all the fences and of course, no signage or directions anywhere
Concrete paths are cracking every 2 to 3 metres
No shade over barbecue tables
Signage on ‘entrance’ points is contradictory (and again not in accordance with the ‘agreement’)
One would need to be a mountain goat to scale the Queen’s Rd., entrance – plus no disability access through this entrance whatsoever.
If this token ‘development’ really cost $1.8 million, then someone has been ripped off big time. It fails on all criteria of aesthetic, environmental, and open space design.

We will let our photos do the talking. But, how on earth any of this was ‘negotiated’ and how this council can continue to let the MRC get away with blue murder is unforgiveable. Lipshutz, Hyams, Newton, Esakoff, Pilling and Southwick are fully to blame for their monumental sellout of a potentially great community asset.

Here are a few photos and then a slideshow. Please read carefully the nonsense that the MRC has been allowed to post at the entrances. Special attention should be paid to: the statement about ‘restricted areas’; times of opening; and the totally inaccurate maps.

For the historical record here’s what was said by residents and these councillors when the application came up for approval. The relevant URLs are:

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/mrc-planning-conference-the-farce-continues/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/mrc-planning-conference-part-2/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/2594/

And some of the most pertinent comments are highlighted, especially ESKAOFF’s –

SPEAKER #11: Asked if playground was part of application – was told ‘yes’. No detail provided about the playground; Tangalakis then asked if the speaker was an original objector and if so she would have seen the drawings. Speaker responded that what she’d seen were ‘board games’ and “I think that is a silly idea’. Stated that she has young children and couldn’t imagine anyone bothering to go over to a board game if that’s all that was going to be offered. Kids need better designed playgrounds. ..’.waste of money to put a board game there’. Suggested that unless decent scale is erected then it would remain ‘isolated’ and ‘neglected’. Queried the location adjacent to a lake – safety. Needs fencing and will be cold. Looked at plans, ‘i tried but I could not work out the scale so had no idea’ of anything. In support of developing centre, but if the plan goes ahead it will simply be a ‘lost opportunity’ to do something worthwhile. Concerned that this is all MRC work and that council should ‘independently assess’ merits. Objects to fence, and ‘why it’s necessary’ since access is denied until training over, so why need it? Access point for family not officially recognised so makes it difficult for people to get to facilities. Needs to be ‘equitable access’ to these facilities.

ESAKOFF: Concurred with both Hyams and Pilling. The post and rail fence becomes ‘something more acceptable….we will be pursuing further (playground) equipment….other than that I’m happy with this approval…

: Disability access?

: Weeds, Weeds, Weeds…..

: Park or weeds?

: Rubbish dump!

: 9.45????????

: Great workmanship!

: More superb care taken!

: So imaginative!

: Sitting on a plug hole!

: Any gardener’s available?

: Help – gardener’s desperately wanted!

: More weeds!

: Dead in 3 months?

: Fences, fences, fences

: Soccer for the littlies!

: More fences

: Mom, I’m bored!

: Crack after crack

: Tunnel of love?

: Highway to heaven?

: Oh, the smell!

: More dung!

: Any mountain goats out there?

April 22, 2013

Oooh Calcutta!

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

The government has released the figures on the planning activity audit for 2011/12. We’ve commented previously on the highly dubious figures submitted by Glen Eira (see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/a-mountain-of-clerical-errors/) so it would not surprise us if this year’s data is equally suspect. However, even given these figures, the trends are alarming and the future is writ large once comparisons are made with surrounding councils. With over 1000 subdivisions and 1000 planning permits granted in 2011/12 Glen Eira is paving the way for more and more (over) development. Further, the much vaunted ‘safeguarding’ of Minimal Change Areas is also becoming exposed for what it is – a myth!

Below are some maps detailing permits for all the areas. Please note the distribution in Glen Eira for both permits and subdivisions. Under Newton and Akehurst, Glen Eira is fast becoming what Lobo would call ‘Calcutta’!

April 19, 2013

The Community Voice Does Matter

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

We’ve been following with great interest the Orrong Rd challenge to the LendLease application. Stonnington Council appealed the planning panel’s decision to the Supreme Court which is now underway. Below are two items – the Mayor’s statement and the Orrong Group summary of the first day’s proceedings.

590 Orrong Road Update

18 Apr 2013The City of Stonnington will continue to push for a positive outcome for residents living near a controversial Armadale development site, Mayor Cr Matthew Koce says.

Council this week presented its case at the Supreme Court, arguing that an ‘error of law’ was made by VCAT in its decision to approve Lend Lease’s permit application for 590 Orrong Road. The Supreme Court has reserved its decision.

Council received more than 600 objections to the development, which proposes 466 units at a height of up to 13 storeys.

“Our appeal was principally based on the tribunal’s statement that the number of objections to the proposed development was an irrelevant consideration,” Cr Koce said.

“There is a lot of community concern over VCAT’s handling of the case to date, including whether all statements of grounds were considered by the Tribunal.

“These residents have a right to speak up and be heard about what’s being built next door to them, especially when they’ll be living in the shadow of such a large overdevelopment of a key site.

“We are, of course, hoping for a positive outcome from this appeal, one that respects the opinions of our residents and one that will protect the rights of residents everywhere.”

Cr Koce has called on the State Government to make a timely decision on a Planning Scheme Amendment, which will place stricter planning controls on the significant Armadale block.

“We have been working on planning controls for this site since 2010, before we received a planning permit application for it,” he said.

“Most recently, the Government said it would not make a decision on the Amendment until the Supreme Court made its judgment. This made no sense, as they are totally separate matters.”

The Amendment includes

mandatory maximum height controls of 17 metres (six storeys)
maximum density of 50 per cent of the 2.5 hectare site to allow for open space
a maximum site yield of 250 units
set-backs of six metres around the entire site.

For the latest information on Planning Scheme Amendment C153, including the Panel Report, please click here.

For the latest information on Planning Application 0725/11, please click here.

+++++++++

There was a great community turn-out to the Supreme Court hearing, with “standing room” only for the first morning. More than 85 people were present to hear Stonnington Council challenge VCAT’s ruling. Even the ‘jury box’ had to be made available to accommodate the crowd.

Justice Karin Emerton presided over the hearing. Stuart Morris QC acted for Stonnington Council and Chris Canavan QC for Lend Lease and Larkfield. Both held the same positions at last year’s VCAT appeal.

Stuart Morris led the Council’s case stating that more than three quarters of the 450 submissions to VCAT from residents were “simply ignored”.

Mr Morris suggested that VCAT had diverged from “established practice” and its decision could be in breach of the Planning Act and in “breach of its own charter”. He stated that this case was important as it went towards “the administration of planning law in Victoria”.

Council argued a second important “error of law”: VCAT’s interpretation of Stonnington Council‘s “‘Large Site Policy” and whether account had been given to the need for developments to reflect the surrounding neighbourhood character.

If the Court rules that the case be referred back to VCAT, Council called for it to be heard before a newly constituted VCAT panel.

The Judge reserved her decision. We will notify you as soon as we hear, which will probably be in the next 2 to 6 weeks.

Our impression of the Supreme Court hearing is far more positive than previous planning hearings. We share the Mayor’s hopes for a positive outcome and “one that respects the opinions of our residents and one that will protect the rights of residents everywhere”. He said “the residents have a right to speak up and be heard”. There is more from the Mayor on the Council web site.

We believe that this will be a test case and perhaps a ‘watershed’ case for planning law in Victoria. Listening to all the arguments and issues raised over the last two days we have a picture of a planning scheme that could be described as a minefield for the community to navigate. It should not be like this and hopefully this case will give a strong message to Government.

Source: http://orronggroup.wordpress.com

April 17, 2013

Moonscaping

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

Drive or walk anywhere throughout Glen Eira and you’ll find block after block waiting to be developed, or in various stages of development. What they all have in common (with some very rare exceptions) is that they are treeless and that every remnant of vegetation has been ripped out in order to cram bigger or higher density development onto the land. Moonscaping is definitely a most appropriate name for all this.

Yet, when it comes to tree registers and their protection on private property, the arguments put up by some councillors are that the current planning scheme and the application process ensures that moonscaping doesn’t happen. Esakoff even complains that there is no need to make people ‘jump through more hoops’ – that the rigours of the planning scheme are sufficient. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just wonder:

Of the 1200 planning applications that come in each year, how many trees have been ‘protected’ on these properties?
How many applicants have been fined for removing said trees?
How many prosecutions have actually taken place?

Glen Eira is supposed to be ‘green’ – a city that values its trees, vegetation, and ‘garden’ atmosphere. These photos all taken in the space of half an hour, are just a glimpse into how little this council does to ensure that the environment is just as important as multi-unit development. Please note: there are many more photos we could have put up.