GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

April 10, 2013

The Show Goes On!

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

Local Laws Committee

LIPSHUTZ: said that of the ‘major issues’ discussed one was the ‘tree policy’. Reports should come back ‘sometime in May’ from corporate counsel.  On ‘organised sport’ rather than ‘amend’ this in the Local Law the committee decided that ‘explanatory notes’ would be incorporated and that these would set ‘out what we see as organised sport’. Also stated that the tree register issue was ‘complex’. At first they were thinking about a ‘point system’ and then rejected it so other alternatives had to now be investigated. So ‘rather than rushing it’ and ‘getting it wrong’ it is wise to do it properly.

COMMENT : Requests for a Tree Register are now a decade old. This is certainly not ‘rushing it’! Also a decade old is the continuing farce over ‘organised sport’ and the laughing stock that this council has become statewide. Remember the ongoing Frisbee affair, the schleppers, the kids in the park, and last but not least, the zombies! And the $64 question – does Lipshutz son’s Frisbee group now have a permit? And why oh why can’t the community be privy to the rationale behind jettisoning the points system that countless other councils employ? Do other councillors even know the logic behind this decision?

Sport and Rec Committee

LIPSHUTZ: moved an amendment about ‘last paragraph of second page’ (WRONG he is referring to the sentence about BURKE) but wanted added that there would be an ‘update about policy’ at the next meeting. Magee seconded this amendment. Lipshutz continued saying that one of the main issues was sporting ground allocations. Said that ‘officers deal with that on the basis of policy’ . Said that Burke ‘went through that with us’ and that at the next meeting there would be an ‘update’ on policy. Stated that ground allocation is the domain of officers on ‘policy’ that council has approved. Burke at the next committee meeting will report back.

MAGEE: for a city with so little open space, sport ground allocation can ‘be divisive’ and ‘very disappointing for clubs’. A “clear policy can be put in place’ for allocations. This has ‘been done successfully’ for years and he ‘welcomes’ officers’ input into ‘putting the policy together’ and is ‘looking forward’ to seeing that policy.

COMMENT: Here we have it – despite Lipshutz’s attempts at obfuscation! There IS NO SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATIONS POLICY. There never has been! All has been left in the hands of Burke. From these comments councillors would appear to again be shying away from any attempt to pass a resolution on the authority to decide who gets what!

VCAT WATCH

Lipshutz provided the ‘commentary’ on the cited decision and claimed it again ‘comes down to what residents want’ as opposed to what the VCAT member wants. Said that the government wants more ‘denSity housing’ etc and that ‘we can’t do anything about that’. Also that ‘one member’ is pro-development’ and another member is opposed to development.

DELAHUNTY – when reading the article she noted that councillors argued ‘against setbacks’ on Hawthorn Rd (Emmy Monash decision and developer handing out How-to-vote cards) and that she argued for setbacks and now ‘another time those same councillors didn’t argue’ for setbacks. So it’s ‘no wonder’ that anyone, including VCAT is ‘confused….I’m confused’.

COMMENT: We’ve commented ad nauseum on the continual scapegoating of VCAT as the villain. Yes, they only need to ‘consider’ policy, but when a council such as Glen Eira has no structure plans, no height limits, no public realm policy, no parking precinct plans and after three years of the Planning Scheme Review has done practically nothing on what it stated it would do (ie Heritage reviews, open space levies etc.) then one must question how much ‘certainty’ this council gives to developers as opposed to residents and the protection of amenity.

 

CENTENARY PARK PAVILION

 

MAGEE moved the motion to accept the motion. It’s been needed for over ten years. His boys played for the teams and they ‘had to change’ under the trees because no changing rooms. Now it will be a change from the ‘dilapidated’ old building to the impressive ‘state of the art’ new pavilion. Said the report was ‘very in depth’ and the only ‘down side’ was that it was forecast to take 20 months to complete but the recommendation will let council ‘move onto detailed design phase’.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed that this has been ‘a long time coming’. Now they can with the $500,000 dollar grant from the government.

SOUNNESS moved the amendment that a landscaping plan be added to the recommendation and that the car parking plan be deferred until a ‘detailed landscape design assessment’ was done. Magee refused to accept the amendment. The amendment was then seconded by Pilling. Sounness went on to say that he felt there had to be discussion about ‘cost’ of car parks and he’s got questions about the use of the current land. Said that ‘more discussion’ is needed and that the information provided is ‘insufficient’ – that he wants ‘more information’.

PILLING: wasn’t opposed to the motion and the pavilion was a good idea and needed. But was concerned ‘about the process here’ in the car park design. Compared this to GESAC when ‘at the last moment’ there were 2 instances of extending the car parks and that ‘there seems to be a bit of a similar trend happening here’ . Said that he had asked if there was any loss of open space and that ‘I would like to see that information’ so that they could then ‘really discuss the merit’ . He was urging for a ‘cautionary approach’ and not to ‘just rush in’ and that council needs to ‘investigate all opportunities’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she’d asked a lot of questions and that as councillors they ‘do have an option to go back’ when the design is completed and look at the issue of car parking again and ‘whether or not’ this part ‘goes ahead’. Said that she’d like to see consultation with community and stakeholders about the design. Said she wasn’t so worried about loss of open space because council ‘gains’ in terms of safety and that the ‘new open space’ could be made into something ‘beautiful’.

LIPSHUTZ: said this was only about design and the building of the car park is ‘not what’s going to happen’. Yes, ‘we want it done properly’ and quickly. Once the design is done and ‘information that is brought to us by officers’ they can ‘have another look at it’. They can always say ‘no we’re not happy with that’ and order that the car park be redesigned. Said that the ‘analogy with GESAC is not valid’. GESAC did have a ‘car park planned’ but they were so ‘successful beyond our wildest dreams’.

HYAMS: ‘sympathised’ with Sounness and thought that they would be ‘better placed’ to look at issues of the car park and open space once the design was done because ‘then we’ll have a better idea’.

MAGEE: also ‘admired’ Sounness’ desire to protect the environment, but sometimes you have to be ‘selfish’ and say that he knows the area and the land and that no-one ever uses it. The two car parks date back to 1989 and the land was supposed to be for a kindergarten but with the amalgamation of councils nothing has been done with this. Didn’t think that there was anything on the land ‘worth protecting’ and that ‘the community does not venture into’ that space. Said that adding car park at building stage ‘makes good sense’ and brings ‘both car parks into one site’ and gives ‘extra car parking at no loss of open space’…’no net loss of open space’. Also removes a car park from the playground. It’s a ‘win-win’ and repeated that ‘there is no net loss of open space’.

AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR – SOUNNES & PILLING. VOTING AGAINST: MAGEE, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, DELAHUNTY.

COMMENT: We draw readers’ attention to several crucial points in the above:

1. the claim AGAIN, that officers’ reports are deficient in information

2. Whom to believe – Magee or Pilling. Pilling claims that he asked for information on loss of open space. Clearly that has not come back. Yet Magee is so adamant that there is no loss of current open space. What does he know that Pilling doesn’t know, or is this just another porkey that sounds good?

3. Given the history of this council, there has rarely if ever, been a change of mind, or even a review, of the original proposals once passed by council. There is, in our view, as much hope of saving this area of vegetation as there is of Melbourne winning the AFL premiership this year!

Return to original motion. DELAHUNTY said good to see funding from government even though this comes from slashing TAFE funding, and that the project itself ‘has merit’. Said that ‘we will consider the open space’ and what the ‘community feels’.

MAGEE: ‘long awaited’ ‘valuable addition’ and ‘welcomed the money from the state government’.

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

April 8, 2013

An Old Stor(e)y!

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

Recent posts have highlighted the failure of the planning department to meet its legal obligations in notifying resident objectors of amended application plans within the required time limit, or perhaps at all. Over a year ago a ‘red dot’ VCAT decision lambasted Glen Eira Council for its poor record keeping, and its failure to adhere to Practice Notes. Judging by recent events, nothing much appears to have changed! Here’s the decision and some extracts. See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/2065.html

Lorne Crest Pty Ltd v  Glen Eira  CC & Ors (includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2011] VCAT 1422 (2 August 2011)

RED DOT DECISION SUMMARY

The practice of VCAT is to designate cases of interest as ‘Red Dot Decisions’. A summary is published and the reasons why the decision is of interest or significance are identified. The full text of the decision follows. This Red Dot Summary does not form part of the decision or reasons for decision.

 

NATURE OF CASE The role of Responsible Authorities and Applicants in applications under s.87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
REASONS WHY DECISION IS OF INTEREST OR SIGNIFICANCE
PRACTICE OR PROCEDURE – consideration of individual instance or systemic issues Practice Note PNPE2 – clarification of requirements under clauses 2.8 to 2.10.

Information required to assist the Tribunal in identifying other persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of requests under s.87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

SUMMARY

This case involves a request to amend a permit issued at the direction of the Tribunal for 34 dwellings in a 3 storey apartment building with a basement carpark.

The substantive amendments involve increasing the number of dwellings by 11 to 45 dwellings through the addition of two further levels to the building, and the introduction of a graffiti mural art installation to external walls.

At the start of the hearing, it emerged that persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of the amendment request had not been notified of the application, namely two persons who objected to the permit application.

This case highlights the important role of Responsible Authorities in providing the correct information to the Tribunal under Practice Note PNPE2 (Information from decision makers) and the role of Applicants in assisting the Tribunal to determine persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of requests under s.87A of the Act.

While this particular case is based on an application under s.87A of the Act, the principles discussed equally apply to applications under s.87 and 89 of the Act.

To assist in this process, the Responsible Authority has an important role to play. Practice Note PNPE2/11 sets out information required to be provided by Responsible Authorities to the Tribunal.

  1. The information requested under clauses 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11 of Practice Note PNPE2/11 is of particular importance. It requires the following:

2.8 Whether notice of the permit application was given under section 52 of the Act; the date and manner of giving any notice, and a list of the properties or persons to whom notice was required to be given.

2.9 The number of objections received and the names and addresses of persons who objected.

2.10 The current names and addresses as shown in the responsible authority’s records of the owners and occupiers of the properties whose owners or occupiers objected to the application for permit.

2.11 Whether any person other than persons named as parties to the application may have a material interest in the outcome of the application, and an indication of the nature of the interest.

  1. The reference to “notice of the permit application” in clause 2.8 is often misunderstood. This misunderstanding seems to have occurred in the present proceeding where the Responsible Authority’s response was:

Notice of the application to amend the Planning Permit has not been given by the Council.

  1. The Responsible Authority’s response “N/A” was given in relation to clauses 2.8 and 2.9 and the comment “Nil at this stage” appears beside the information requested in clause 2.11.
  2. Extensive notice was in fact required in respect of the original permit application and as I have mentioned, three objections were received after that notice was given.
  3. The term “notice of the permit application” is a reference to the notice that occurs during the permit application process before a decision on an application is made and before any permit is granted.
  4. This should not be confused with the notice to persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of the request now required to be determined by the Tribunal under the current permit amendment request.
  5. 22.           Given that a considerable amount of time may have elapsed since the grant of the permit and a request to amend it, sometimes several years, it is also important that information provided by Responsible Authorities is up to date – that is based on current rate records.
  6. 23.           It is not sufficient, for example, to provide the Tribunal or Applicant with a photocopy of the original list of persons notified without it first being checked for currency against up-to-date rate records held by the Council.
  7. 24.           To illustrate, land may be have been subdivided and redeveloped since the grant of the permit, in a way that its owners/occupiers may now have a material interest in the outcome of a decision to amend it.

 

 

April 5, 2013

Done Deals?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[14] Comments 

The items set down for Tuesday night’s council meeting are truly staggering, leaving us to ponder the very serious question of : how many done deals are we looking at? How much more spin will this community tolerate? Here are the lowlights:

CENTENARY PARK PAVILION DEVELOPMENT

  • More loss of public open space
  • More loss of mature trees
  • Another $600,000 for extended car parking
  • No traffic report or any statistics to justify these actions
  • No consultation with residents – just so called ‘stakeholders’ – ie ONLY SPORTSCLUBS
  • A ball park figure of $2.68 million

centenary park

CENTRE OF RACECOURSE SPORTING FACILITIES

  • No mention of the independent consultant who was supposed to draft the report? Where is it?
  • From ‘no ball games’ the plan is now to have: 2 baseball diamonds, 5 soccer pitches, 1 footy oval, etc.
  • What secret discussions have been going on with the MRC, and Maccabi? Would council really propose something like this unless such discussions had already taken place?

Pages from April9-2013-AGENDA-2

LOCAL LAW & SPORT & RECREATION COMMITTEE MINUTES

  • Secret, closed meetings that continue with the useless navel gazing! Lipshutz promised the local law would be ready in February. There still is no Tree Register, nothing on Organised Sport, and a brief one sentence about ‘meeting procedures’. We are not privy to any of the ‘reports’.
  • Does the right hand really know what the left hand is doing? Why is the Sport & Rec committee suddenly discussing local laws? Why isn’t this done via full council meetings so that transparency is assured? When will the draft Local Law finally be ready or will it all be crammed into one meeting and thus hopefully rammed through like everything else this council does?

SELL OFF OF RESERVE

  • Is council really prepared to forego $40,000 because it might cost them $5000? Land has been valued at over $60,000 but council is willing to sell it for $20,000.
  • Is it mere coincidence that an adjacent property was sold last year and that the other neighbour is now about to acquire 130 sq metres for a song. Does he/she perhaps own the adjoining property and that we can expect an application to come in very soon for a huge development? Or are we merely being too cynical?

GESAC

More brilliant planning that has led to:

  • Another $120,000 to be spent on outfitting another ‘studio’
  • Another $125,000 spent on “better entrance and exit between the foyer and pool hall’
  • Still no word on costs for ‘liquidated damages’ and the Hansen & Yuncken legal battle
 

April 5, 2013

And The Winner Is…..

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

Guy races ahead, but where’s he going?

DateApril 5, 2013

The Planning Minister ticks off huge developments without sharing his vision for the city.

Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy.

Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy. Photo: Luis Enrique Ascui

Melbourne’s future is speeding down a freeway hitched to the ideological racing car of Planning Minister Matthew Guy – where it is going is anyone’s guess. Guy (pictured) is in overdrive: 70,000 new housing lots to be released on Melbourne’s fringe this year; dozens of skyscrapers approved; the CBD expanded massively; and big changes to Victoria’s planning zones.

Guy once said a single day in government was better than every day in opposition – he enjoys power. But what will his legacy be? What kind of Melbourne is he creating?

Melbourne is living with the mistakes of the past. Docklands was hatched in a time of developer-driven policy and now planners are cleaning up the mess. Guy’s approach so far has been to treat Melbourne like one big Docklands – developer-led planning.

What has many planners scratching their heads is the speed of action by Guy in approving development and the inertia in releasing a strategic plan for the city – how it will all knit together, what sort of city we are creating and why. Despite a decade in opposition and more than two years in office, the Coalition is yet to deliver a road map on how Melbourne should develop.

Submissions on a new metropolitan planning strategy closed last month and a draft strategy will be released in the middle of the year. By that time Guy will have approved more than 40 new towers, expanded the CBD into Fishermans Bend and Carlton and moved Melbourne’s boundary outwards by 5000 hectares. Guy has been all cart, no horse.

The delay in producing a development blueprint while rapidly ticking off developments raises questions on how seriously the government is taking the strategy, and risks the final product being seen as little more than tokenism. As Melbourne University planning expert Alan March noted recently, there should be more forward planning on how the plethora of new skyscrapers will affect each other and what new services are needed.

It is difficult to find any skyscraper application Guy has turned down. Some are not even being built – lucky developers selling dirt that has gone up in value because they have been given a high-rise planning permit.

And what impact will changes to Victoria’s planning zones have?

There will be more commercial tourism development in some of Victoria’s most-loved destinations, such as the Great Ocean Road, and more development in Melbourne’s green wedge areas.

What changed residential zones will mean for the value of people’s homes remains a big unknown. The neighbourhood residential zone will have strict development controls and it is unclear if this will add or detract from the value of houses. And what impact will these no-go zones – no doubt aimed at voters in the leafy eastern suburbs – have on residents in other areas of Melbourne? Will it mean high-rise developments in their streets because some suburbs have been locked up?

Guy says he is turning planning into an economic portfolio – but Melbourne needs a planning minister, not another treasurer.

Decisions should be based on what is best for the whole of Melbourne in the long term.

Guy is moving with such haste that decisions are being made with little detail.

A new metropolitan planning authority has been announced but no one has any idea what it will do.

One thing is clear – Guy believes in the government transferring much of the responsibility for planning the future of the city to private developers. State government developer Places Victoria has been slashed to the point of extinction.

Grand plans for world-best practice developments on Melbourne’s urban fringe are being axed and land sold off to private developers. Key urban renewal sites in Footscray that Places Victoria paid top dollar for are being sold at a loss.

Why? Why not retain the sites and sell them at a profit? Why should taxpayers sell cheap land to developers?

A Places Victoria insider said it was ”a terrible time to sell – we bought at the height of the market and now we are selling at the bottom of it”.

The government is about to complete an audit of all government-owned land, driven by Treasury, to determine what can be sold.

Unlike the Kennett government, which had major assets to privatise and collect big windfalls from, there is little left to sell except government land.

The government will be careful not to spook the horses with public land sales, and it will be spread out across agencies and departments, but it will happen and the public should be concerned.

While it says there will be no fire sale, the private sector is licking its lips. But what will be the legacy of this sale? Less land for new parks, schools and childcare centres. Future generations forced to buy land at higher prices because a previous government had a cash flow problem. Guy needs to slow down a little bit – planning a great city is not a race or a sale.

Jason Dowling is The Age‘s city editor.

 

April 3, 2013

Just Like In Glen Eira, Eh?

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

progress leader

PS: We think readers will find the following Kingston Council Notice of Motion of great interest given what happens far too often in Glen Eira. The following is from the minutes of  25th March, 2013.

Notices of Motion

Notice of Motion – Cr West
Moved: Cr West Seconded: Cr Ronke
That Council adopt a position for mediation of a development
application only with the support of either:
1. all three ward Councillors, or
2. a majority of all Councillors.

CARRIED

 

April 2, 2013

The Leader & Racecourse

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

fun run

letters

 

March 29, 2013

‘Rare Lapses’ Are Becoming Endemic!

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

There have been 2 recent VCAT decisions that we wish to highlight. In BOTH cases council’s planning department failed in its legal obligations – namely to alert resident objectors as to the council’s position on amended plans within the required 7 day period of notice. What this means is that objectors show up to the hearing with practically no time to adjust their claims or to prepare sufficiently for what could be a completely different set of circumstances. They are left out in the cold and perhaps totally unaware of the secret deals that have been made between council and developer. Certainly without sufficient time to prepare an adequate defence or to even contact council planners.

We’ve previously featured Hyams’ pathetic response to one such objector – the officer was on holidays. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/does-council-support-residents-or-developers/) Not good enough! How many such ‘rare lapses’ have taken place and what steps have been implemented to ensure they don’t happen again? How often will the same pathetic excuse be used to explain sheer incompetence or indifference to residents? How much longer will councillors allow the inefficiencies and lack of accountability to continue?

What is even worse is that the VCAT Watch reports reveal nothing of these incidents. It is spin all the way. Except, that if one bothers to go to the actual judgement the Glen Eira Version of History is revealed for what it is – a total sham!

Here’s what council’s version of events regarding the 14-16 Maroona Rd hearing stated (from the minutes of 5th Feb) –

Prior to the hearing, the applicant approached Council seeking support for amended plans which satisfied a number of Council’s conditions, whilst the plans also provided for a revised design incorporating twenty six (26) dwellings. The amended plans were considered to be satisfactory and, in principle, Council supported the amended plans.

What really happened though is revealed by the member –

Prior to the hearing the Permit Applicant circulated amended plans which were intended to be a response to, though not fully comply with, many of the Condition 1 requirements for amended plans sought to be imposed by Council. Prior to the hearing, further discussions were held between the Council and the Applicant, such that an agreed position between these two parties was presented to the Tribunal as to a modified form of Condition 1 that should be applied as a result of the proceeding under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act.

Ms Coram and the other residents had not been part of these discussions and at the start of the hearing declined an opportunity requested by the Permit Applicant to attempt to mediate the matter.

Further, the original application was for 27 units. The original DPC decision cut this back to 24 and then lo and behold we’re back up to 26 units and a reduction in car parking. So we now have 26 two bedroom units when one of the major planks of the Planning Scheme is to ensure that there is ‘diversity’ of dwellings! We insist that no bigger hoax has been perpetrated on residents that this bit of fluff and bubble.

There are some other comments that clearly show how little effort is put in by this council to ensure the bona fides of applications. None of this of course is evident in the officers’ report. We’ll simply extract those passages.

During the course of the hearing it occurred to me (ie member) that the shadow diagrams for 9.00am had not been drawn correctly. As a result at the conclusion of the hearing I gave oral orders for an amended shadow diagram to be circulated to all parties within seven days of the date of the hearing, and for the other parties to have an additional seven days to make further submissions, if desired. At the hearing all parties agreed that these timelines were sufficient.

During the course of the hearing Ms Bowden (for developer) submitted that due to the removal of the two existing crossovers to the review site, that one additional on street visitor space is to be created. On this basis, and considering Council’s support for the proposal following the review by their traffic engineers, I cannot see any reason why I should not approve the reduction of the standard visitor car parking requirement by one space.

Ms Silveira (objector), in her concerns regarding the intensity of the development, referred to the risk caused by the increased traffic levels to be experienced in Maroona Road. At no stage during the hearing was I addressed specifically in relation to the existing or anticipated traffic levels, or any difficulties experienced by residents in exiting the street to either Neerim Road or Glen Huntly Road. Given the absence of any such detailed submission, I must give weight to the assessment of the application by Council’s traffic engineers and the support for the development as expressed by Council. I therefore cannot find any reason to refuse to grant a permit based on traffic grounds.

The questions that follow have to be addressed by councillors:

  • Why are resident objectors not always informed of amended plans nor council’s agreement to these new plans AND if they are informed why is there not sufficient notice given as required by law?
  • Why does this council so often merely accept the developer’s  assessment of various elements such as overshadowing, traffic, parking, without checking the veracity of these claims?
  • Why did council not check the accuracy of the shadow diagrams?
  • Why has traffic engineering not insisted upon the car parking standards?
  • How much longer will councillors allow residents in Housing Diversity to be the sacrificial lamb to a flawed vision that desperately needs to be jettisoned?
  • How much longer will councillors sit in silence and permit shoddy reports to pass without comment, without serious questioning, and without proper analysis?
  • Are we right in assuming that this council has no respect for residents and ostensibly no respect for the legal requirements? If they did, then such incidents would not happen or would certainly not be allowed to continue!

If you know of any other incidents along similar lines then please contact us!

 

 

March 29, 2013

GESAC Car Park

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

A reminder!

  • No councillor uttered the word ‘tree’, ‘open space’ when the decision was made
  • No mention by councillors or officers of the further loss of public open space
  • No consultation with residents
  • No mention of the destruction of huge gums
  • No mention that recently planted trees and shrubs would be ripped out
  • No preliminary traffic report or investigation
  • No clear and decipherable architect’s drawings revealing the extent of incursion into public open space
  • No upfront honesty from anyone!

We’ve visited the site again in recent days and found:

  • One huge gum is now dying because its roots have been torn to shreds. Certainly not a surprise when trenches are dug to at least 30 cm around it. That leaves the question as to whether or not a fully qualified arborist was called in to ensure that the excavations would not damage the few remaining trees left along Gardener’s Rd.
  • No change to the bus route to East Boundary Road. So much for years of ‘advocating’!
  • No costing on what the destruction of newly planted trees and shrubs will be and what it will cost to replace them

P1000074

Bailley 11Mar13 IMG_1243sm

P1000073

P1000075

IMG_1255

 

March 27, 2013

The ‘Clayton’s Agreement’ Carries On!

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

We’ve received numerous comments and emails from residents as to the failure of both Council, the MRC and/or Trustees to ensure that the terms of the ‘agreement’ are adhered to – especially in terms of ACCESS to the Racecourse. Time after time gates, which are supposed to be open from 9.30 to sunset are locked.  Not good enough! What has council been doing to ensure that access is available? Why is this situation being allowed to drag on for years and years? Why has there been no public comment from this council demanding that all terms of the agreement are met – especially the removal of fences and access.

We’ve revisited the January 2011 VCAT decision on the 7 lot subdivision and note that the member made explicit comments as to the Section 173 ‘agreement’ regarding access. It is now 14 months later and residents still cannot enter the racecourse as determined. Why has council allowed such a situation to continue? Here are some extracts from the decision –

“Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner of Lot 5 must enter into a section 173 agreement which provides that public access across Lot 5 to the entrance to the tunnel to the centre of the racecourse must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The Tribunal understands that it is the Trustees of the Crown Land that set conditions relating to public access to the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse and whilst the MRC has control over its own land that abuts the racecourse, as well as occupying the Centre of the Racecourse, it does not control or set in place the conditions for public access to the Crown Land. MRC can therefore only control access over its land from Glen Eira Road to the entrance to the Tunnel.

The Club will reconfigure all horse movement to enable the tunnel from Glen Eira Road to be open 9.30am to sunset.

Public access to the Centre will be provided as follows.

On all days excluding scheduled race days and 10 event days as above:

a. by vehicle through the Tunnel from Glen Eira Road

b. by a footpath created in the tunnel from Glen Eira Road – the footpath will be separated from the vehicle pathway by post-and- rail fence with the tunnel having enhanced lighting

c. by the pedestrian tunnel from the Guineas car park

d. by new surface pedestrian access from Glen Huntly Park across the race tracks into precinct 4 by providing gates or gaps in all the rails. The Club reserves the right to modify, suspend or change access after consultation with the Council in the event of damage to the racing surface

e. by foot via the existing gate from Queen’s Avenue

On all days excluding 3 scheduled race days and 10 event days as above:

a. by vehicle through the tunnel from Glen Eira Road

b. by a footpath created in the tunnel from Glen Eira Road – the footpath will be separated from the vehicle pathway by post-and- rail fence with the tunnel having enhanced lighting.

All the above applies up to 352 days per year as above, 9.30am – sunset, as set pout in section 2.1.

The improvements in a – e above will be established by the MRC within 3 months of this agreement being executed subject to formal planning approval, the Trustees approval and Public Land Manager consent.

The Responsible Authority agreed that MRC’s recommendation of the entering into of a section 173 agreement between MRC, as owner of lot 5 and the Responsible Authority would allow for an assurance that public access would continue to be available over this portion of land.

In particular the entering into of a section 173 agreement that is required to be placed on the title to lot 5 will ensure that public access can be continued in this location.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/104.html

 

March 24, 2013

80/20 And The 20 Don’t Count!

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

This is an exceedingly long post but one which is arguably the most important we have ever put up. It features the events surrounding the planning application for an Ormond 3 storey, 11 dwelling development at the last council meeting. The officer’s recommendation was to grant a NOD for 10 dwellings.

We believe the ‘debate’ that occurred on this application epitomises all that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira. It reveals the usual bogus and contradictory claims made by all and sundry, as well as the full inadequacies of the current planning scheme and its total disregard for residents in Housing Diversity Areas. We also wonder if Pilling and Sounness in particular, have the foggiest idea about planning or they are just there to support whatever is dished up to them. We can only shake our heads at the naivety, if not straight out stupidity of various councillors.

This will become obvious upon reading. We remind residents that the Emmy Monash development mentioned throughout, involved the granting of a permit for a 4 storey development on Hawthorn Rd. Lipshutz moved the motion about removing setbacks and this was supported by the majority. It also came to light that the developer just happened to be the same individual who was handing out How To Vote cards for the gang! (No conflict of interest was declared!).

We urge all residents concerned about the future of their neighbourhoods to pay careful attention to what transpired last Tuesday night. Our ‘commentary’ on this fiasco will feature in a future post – this is just a blow by blow description of our councillors ‘at work’!

Esakoff moved to reject the application. Seconded by Okotel.

ESAKOFF: refusal based on on ‘visual bulk’, ‘excessive height’, doesn’t meet ResCode standards of the planning scheme and doesn’t respect ‘neighbourhood character’ and Housing Diversity policy. Said that there are ‘several factors’ that fail to meet requirements here and that couldn’t be addressed by merely adding conditions. Spoke about ‘amenity impact on neighbours’ and ‘intensity of development’ as well as ‘set backs’ – especially building right on a laneway where bedrooms would be overlooking the laneway. It’s an ‘overdevelopment’ and therefore not ‘appropriate’ or ‘fits into’ this position in Ormond.

OKOTEL: started by saying that everyone thinks that ‘appropriate development’ should happen in Glen Eira but that the ‘key word is appropriate’. The planning scheme she claimed ‘sets out for everyone’…..‘what is considered appropriate’ and that this application ‘doesn’t meet those standards’. It ‘falls outside the upper limits’ of height, site coverage, and neighbourhood character.

PILLING: whilst he ‘appreciated’ the arguments put up so far, he was supporting the recommendation. The property is in a neighbourhood centre and a retail centre, and ‘within a very short distance’ there’s the railway station. Policy is to ‘encourage development in these areas’ and therefore ‘not in minimal change areas’. Thought that council therefore ‘had to be consistent’ since they were ‘trying to get appropriate increased development in these areas’. The application shouldn’t be refused even though it is slightly over specifications and there are ‘some detrimental aspects’ but this still shouldn’t ‘sink’ an application ‘like this’. If the motion to refuse failed then he would be moving a motion to accept the recommendations.

DELAHUNTY: said she didn’t ‘like’ the setbacks of the proposal and ‘I’m confused by my fellow councillors’ by applying the criteria of setbacks to ‘knock back applications on the one hand’ and then ‘not in another’. Referred back to the Emmy Monash 4 storey application on Hawthorn Rd that was passed and ‘some councillors’ argued then that setbacks didn’t matter. Now they’re arguing that it does matter. Said she was ‘confused’ about the setbacks and the ‘different directions this is taking’.

MAGEE: admitted that he had ‘no idea which way I was going to vote tonight’ and was hoping ‘to get persuaded by some really good arguments’ but that ‘so far all speakers have failed to engage me’. The laneway ‘probably saves it’ and then it starts to ‘encroach’ into residential. Asked then ‘where to draw the line’? ‘If nothing else, we have to be consistent’. Was hoping that someone could convince him but he told councillors that they’d just have to wait to ‘see which way my hand goes up’.

SOUNNESS: said he’d try to be ‘inspirational’ but that Magee ‘was a hard act to follow’. From a single house ‘we’re going to stick 11 dwelling on there’..’that’s a lot’…’a big up’ in density. But he’d ‘rather have a bunch of people’ that are close to transport and shops than put ‘in the middle of minimal change areas’. Asked where all the ‘extra people’ can go and what can be protected. Here, ‘they’re next to shops, they’re next to public transport’. Further, ‘it’s not a beautiful place to live’ and he wouldn’t like to live there, but ‘it’s not meant to be a luxurious’ garden area. ‘This is a place for dense living’ and you put this where ‘services and facilities are’. This application ‘might have issues with design’ but that’s the job of council’s urban designer and there are conditions that will deal with trees and access. Said that the ‘issue’ that the application ‘fails on is height’ but the rise of the land makes this about landscaping. He supports the recommendation.

HYAMS: agreed with Sounness and Pilling that ‘this is the right place for increased development’. Overall he wouldn’t ‘have a problem’ but he doesn’t ‘particularly like’ this proposal. Said there’s a difference between saying that we can have increased development and that ‘this is the building that should go there’. Thought that ‘too many issues’ on this application ‘required rectification’. Mentioned site coverage and ‘up the road from a flood zone’. Said that ‘we have rules’ and these ‘rules say 60% site coverage’ so this should be ‘60% site coverage’. It’s also 9.6 metres high and should only be ‘9 metres maximum’. Also that it’s right on the laneway also ‘concerns’ him. Trucks use the laneway and he wouldn’t like to have trucks going ‘thundering’ down outside his bedroom window so that ‘also concerns me’. ‘Generally’ he doesn’t mind tinkering with application because individually all these things wouldn’t necessary occasion a refusal, but taken together ‘there are too many of these things’.

Said that Delahunty’s view of lack of consistency over the Emmy Monash decision but that the setbacks there were ‘the front setbacks’ and ‘still quite a few metres off Hawthorn Rd’  unlike this one which would be right ‘up against the laneway. Said that Pilling and Sounness’s  foreshadowed motion doesn’t deal with the issues he’s outlined and ‘doesn’t make those adjustments’ so if councillors want ‘adjustments’ they should vote for the motion to refuse.

ESAKOFF: ‘an application either meets policy or it doesn’t. This clearly doesn’t’. Reiterated the argument about ‘too much’ site coverage and height and said that ‘if there was a way to address this via conditions that would have been done’ but here it would require a ‘total redesign’. No application like this would come in for a minimal change area. ‘It is in the right spot, housing diversity’ but ‘it has to meet policy’. ‘Increased development is right for this street’ but ‘it has to fit’. Urged councillors ‘not to look at the address’ but as an ‘application for anywhere in Glen Eira and vote with your conscience’.

HYAMS put the motion. Voting in favour of refusal were – HYAMS, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL. Voting against – MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, PILLING, SOUNNESS, LOBO. Motion lost.

Pilling then moved the motion to accept ‘as printed’ and Sounness seconded. Neither Pilling nor Sounness spoke to the motion.

OKOTEL: said that what worries her is that this suggests that ‘it is acceptable to push the limits of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ and also to ‘exceed them’. Said that there’s a policy in place because after consultation with residents that ‘was seen to be what was needed’ for the area and ‘if we don’t apply and uphold our planning policy’ then the question is whether ‘we can blame VCAT for not upholding our policy’? Said that it’s important for councillors to ‘stick to our policy’ and don’t allow applications that go beyond height and site coverage or set backs. Since these standards have been set they should be supported. This application just says that ‘it is acceptable to push those boundaries’ and that ‘anything goes’ in Glen Eira. Went on to say that the planning scheme developed in ‘consultation with residents’ is ‘what they want’ and councillors should stick to that. “I think it’s a sorry day when councillors cannot uphold their own scheme’ and then ‘look to vcat’ when it says that council doesn’t care about its own scheme.

DELAHUNTY: asked Akehurst a question. Since both Okotel and Esakoff had said that the application doesn’t meet ‘planning policy’ she wanted to know whether ‘this application meets planning policy or does not meet planning policy’?

AKEHURST: said he was caught in ‘crossfire’ here and that the application ‘demonstrated’ the problems with people not understanding town planning. Stated that there’s the government code called ResCode which is how the government thinks ‘Victorians should live’ and that has ‘prescriptive standards’ and in this application some have been met which Okotel and Esakoff pointed out and some haven’t such as the 9.6 height which should be 9 metres. ‘There have been other standards which have been breached in this application’ – ie site coverage. ‘But this is where it gets difficult’ since Rescode is ‘interpreted as a guide’ and councils are being asked to ‘have overall’ views on the ‘objectives’ of each of these standards. So, ‘it is possible to say that objectives of certain measures of ResCode have been met’…’even though the prescription has been clearly breached’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she is again ‘expressing my confusion’. Quoted Okotel in saying that it would be a sad day when council doesn’t apply its policy. ‘I stood here and I argued as hard as I could about the setbacks on Hawthorn Road’. Disagreed that ‘it doesn’t affect people’s amenity’ and that people complained ‘directly to the applicant’ and to council about the setbacks ‘and we didn’t enforce’ it. ‘That was a sorry day!’ ‘This is in line with policy’.

ESAKOFF: agreed that it is a ‘sorry day when we can’t uphold our policy’ and when they do what vcat is criticised for doing.‘ Our policy is supposed to be superior to all other municipalities’ and that ‘we protect our residents more than all other municipalities’. Said there’s policy and that ‘we need to be upholding those’.

MAGEE: said that policies ‘are not laws, policies are guidelines’ and it’s up to councillors to accept, reject or modify the proposal and that ‘we’ve had several weeks to do that’. If it’s all about just policy ‘then we might as well not be here’ since they’re superfluous. Asked why councillors who ‘do not have a 4 year degree in town planning’ are necessary if the policy should dictate everything. Said councillors are just ‘mums and dads’ who ‘live next door to developments’ and the decisions are based on asking oneself whether they’d like to live next door to something like this. ‘We will always interpret a guideline the way we need to interpret a guidelines’. Rescode and the planning scheme has to be looked at by officers and then councillors. Said that councillors have to make the decision based on what they think after digesting all the information and not just according to the guildelines or policy because there’s no need for councillors if that’s all they had to do.

HYAMS: said that in planning some things are ‘objective’ and some things ‘subjective’. Some things are ‘measures’ like site coverage and ‘easy to apply’ but other things like neighborhood character and front setbacks ‘are a bit harder to apply’. Setbacks are ‘measured by the average of other houses in the street’. Emmy Monash has got one nearby property right on the street and another one across the road, ‘right back’ ‘so there’s room for interpretation’. This is also true for neighbourhood character. What councillors should be doing is that ‘where it’s prescriptive you apply it’ and ‘where there’s room for interpretation you interpret it’. Referred back to last council meeting and the sign that was applied for the Kittens car wash. Here ‘policy was very clear’ in that there was ‘nothing in planning policy that said you couldn’t have that sign’ but some councillors were worried about the content of the sign and its influence on gender issues. These arguments he claimed ‘weren’t relevant’ but that some councillors ‘used their subjectivity on that’. And ‘a couple of those same councillors are saying that we should let this’ application go through. Mentioned another decision about alcohol for lawn bowls club and some councillors again voting against this but are ‘somehow managing to vote’ in favour of the application ‘tonight’. So he doesn’t want to hear ‘lectures on consistency’ from those councillors.

MAGEE then asked ‘which ones’?

DELAHUNTY: then said ‘I think Okotel because she also voted against the sign. Is that right?’

HYAMS: said that since Okotel is opposing the motion she’s being ‘consistent’

OKOTEL: asked Delahunty to withdraw her remarks.

HYAMS: said that Delahunty’s comment ‘was out of order’ since she ‘didn’t have the floor’ but didn’t say ‘anything that goes against the Local Law’. Went on to say that there are subjective elements and that ‘it’s up to each councillor to apply them as they see fit’. This application has some breaches which ‘are a lot less’ capable of involving ‘subjectivity’ and because ‘this breaches so many prescriptive measures we should refuse it’.

PILLING: thought that everyone’s got the ‘best intentions’ and that’s why these sorts of applications come to council since there are always ‘two sides’ to the issue. ‘On balance’ he’s recommending accepting the recommendation.

MOTION PUT: Esakoff called for a division. In favour: Delahunty, Sounness, Pilling, Magee, Lobo. Against: Esakoff, Okotel, Hyams. Motion carried.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »