GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 4, 2013

Burke & ‘Pay Back Time’?

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

At the outset we wish to state clearly and unequivocally that we have no interest in football allocations per se. What does concern us is the lack of transparency in any of the decision making that surrounds sporting ground allocations. The article at the conclusion of this post comes from today’s online version of the Australian Jewish News. It is quite feasible to draw the conclusion that this is ‘pay back’ for the Ajax – Caulfield Bears saga of last year in that Ajax did not get their sought after allocation.

As stated above, we have no problem with this. What is a huge problem is:

All is left in the hands of Burke and his underlings with no need for accountability, nor transparency
There is no POLICY that is in the public domain
There is no published criteria to account for the decision making
Councillors are out in the cold with no role, no say, no nothing
Such ‘secret’ and unilateral decision making is fraught with danger and the real potential for nepotism, secret deals, intimidation, and woeful decision making as with GESAC.
Councillors MUST PUT A STOP TO THIS if their credibility is not to go completely out the window!

By way of contrast, here is part of the Banyule Sporting Allocation policy where the criteria used to decide who gets what is public and easily accessible –

Numerous other councils don’t seem to have any problem whatsoever in publishing their policies. As always, Glen Eira keeps everything under wraps – that’s if it even exists, and if it does, the promises in the Community Plan to publish ALL council policies are not adhered to. Here are some other Councils’ URLs for residents to check out –

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/14457%20Sporting%20Reserves%20Allocation%20Policy%202011-2014.pdf

http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/experience-moonee-valley/sports-grounds/~/media/Files/Experience%20MV%20Documents/Sports%20club%20information/2010_11_Seasonal_Allocation_Policy.ashx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Sportsground_allocation_policy.pdf

http://whatmattersmanningham.com.au/document/show/63

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/mccwr/publications/policies-strategies-plans/policy%20-%20council%20resolved%20-%20allocation%20of%20sporting%20grounds%20and%20pavilions.doc

http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/freestyler/files/Draft%20-%20Sportsground%20Allocation%20Procedure.pdf

Governance is at an all time low in this council as we’ve repeatedly stated. This is just another example of why drastic change is required.

AJAX allocation battle resurfaces

March 4, 2013

IN a major blow for the AJAX Football Club and the local Jewish community, Glen Eira City Council has denied the club from relocating to Princes Park, instead granting access to Old Haileybury’s Thirds and under-19 teams.

AJAX president Ian Fayman expressed his disappointment at the decision, pointing out that even though the club plays in a different municipality to the juniors, it deserves the right to function as one club at the same home ground.

“The argument is that the seniors and juniors are different clubs,” Fayman told The AJN.

“But they have the same jumper, the same sponsors and the same logo, and the community sees them as one club.”

Fayman accepted that the re-allocated club must be from within Glen Eira, but questioned why the opportunity to join the juniors and seniors was overlooked.

“If an allocation has to be from within the Glen Eira municipality, why is it not AJAX?” Fayman asked.

“It’s the most obvious decision that the junior club should have its senior teams at the same home ground to make a strong pathway, which is a policy of AFL Victoria, and so that the local community can follow.”

In response, council spokesman Paul Burke said that the main reason AJAX was overlooked is because it is based in the Port Phillip municipality.

“As the AJAX [senior] Football Club is not a tenant in Glen Eira, council did not contact them in relation to the coming football season, just as council did not contact other clubs that are tenanted outside of Glen Eira,” Burke told The AJN.

“[And] to ensure that sports fields can sustain the wear and tear from match play and training, existing tenant clubs are sometimes required to use grounds other than their home grounds for either training or matches.”

The other major disappointment for Fayman and the club is that no public expression of interest was undertaken, which he said the council committed to in a previous letter to an AJAX representative.

“The question is, why a public and very transparent process was not implemented,” Fayman said.

“It cannot be accepted that a decision has been made without a public process.”

He also noted the success of last year’s community day, which attracted around 1500 people, as an indication of public support.

“The key example is the community day, where the local community wanted AJAX to be there,” Fayman said.

“We have 72 per cent of our members as voters in Glen Eira, and where do Haileybury’s members reside? Yes they are an internal club in Glen Eira, but their school is based in Mentone.”

PS: And here’s the Leader take on the story –

Ajax Football Club denied the chance to reunite juniors and seniors at Caulfield

Andrea Kellett
March 05, 2013 12:00AM

President of the AJAX Senior Football Club, Ian Fayman with player, Eugene Routman. Picture: Paul Loughnan, Leader

AJAX Football Club is furious its seniors have been denied a move to Princes Park in Caulfield.

The club says it was trying to unite its junior and senior players in Caulfield but Glen Eira Council has overlooked it in preference for another amateur club’s third team.

The council has given the Saturday tenancy to Old Haileyburians Amateur Football Club.

AJAX Senior Football Club president Ian Fayman wants the council to review its decision, hold a public forum and consider shared tenancy at Princes Park.

“AJAX juniors and seniors have the same logo, the same jumper, the same ethos, the same community base,” he said.

“Speak to anyone in Glen Eira and ask is it one club or two and everyone would say, ‘Of course it’s one club’.”

AJAX juniors have trained and played at Princes Park for two decades, while the seniors train and play outside the municipality, in Albert Park.

The club has long wanted to have its senior in the Caulfield area.

Glen Eira Council does not consider the seniors an “existing” tenant.

AJAX controversially offered another club, the Caulfield Bears, $175,000 last year to leave Princes Park so it could play there. The money was never paid.

The council’s community relations director Paul Burke said the council proritised the needs of Glen Eira clubs first.

“AJAX Senior Football Club is not an existing winter tenant in Glen Eira and has never been a tenant in Glen Eira,” he said.

In a letter to Glen Eira Council, Mr Fayman said the council had reneged on a promise AJAX would be consulted about the new ground allocation.

“The AJAX Junior Football Club, which is the current existing tenant on Sunday of Princes Park, was not given any opportunity to make an application for Saturday ground allocation,” he wrote.

“We believe AJAX FC is the local community football club that represents the local community interests and should have at the very least been given the opportunity to make a formal application to have its senior teams play from the same home ground.”

Mr Burke said the council had not called for “new” tenants.

“Council is not offering a new tenancy.

“We are accommodating the requirements and needs of existing tenants,” Mr Burke said.

AJAX Junior Football Club president Daniel Antman said as long as the council considered the seniors an outside club the dream could never be achieved.

“AJAX is one of the few clubs in the region that has a senior club based outside the region, for reasons beyond our control and desire,” he said.

Old Haileyburians Amateur Football Club did not wish to comment.

COMMENT: ‘New tenants’ is an interesting phrase to say the least! The Old Haileyburians are fielding an entire ‘new’ team – the thirds! The game of semantics is alive and well in Glen Eira! See: http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?client=1-3232-36895-0-0&sID=61506&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=22252086

February 20, 2013

The Chooks Are Finally Roosting!

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

The folly of GESAC is about to come back and bite residents really hard. Faced with a $7.1 million bill for employee superannuation, councils have the choice of paying their share off in one lump sum or spreading the repayments out over 10 or 15 years. Glen Eira, because of GESAC, would not have this choice we believe. By borrowing $25 million they are already over committed and no bank in its right mind would lend them any more. The result is that in all probability Glen Eira will be paying off its dues over the extended time period. That means more money down the drain in interest and an inevitable huge rate hike to meet all the bills.

Other councils such as Bayside ($5.1 million) and Nillumbik ($4.78 million) and probably countless others are endeavouring to pay this amount off in one hit. Both will borrow in order to avoid unnecessary expenditure on interest – but they are capable of doing this. For Glen Eira, we would wager that there is not this option. Instead we will be facing years upon years of endless interest repayments.

Serious questions need to be asked about the financial management of this council. Why is there no substantial ‘nest egg’ to cover such unexpected emergencies? Why have all our eggs been placed in the suspect GESAC basket, and now everyone’s got egg on their faces! Why in this cash strapped council that was designated as ‘high risk’ less than a year ago and has only managed to climb up to ‘Low risk” by delaying Duncan McKinnon for over a year, plus other capital works programs, do we have to witness the pathetic squabbling over whether to spend $16,000 for a lolly pop person or other safety measures for our kids? Yet, there’s no problem in finding another $1.5 million for car parking at GESAC.

By our reckoning this council will be facing an interest bill of at least 3 to 4 million dollars per year for the next 15 years. This figure is based on the Nillumbik calculations and the document which was sent to all councils with their individual calculations. (uploaded here) .We have to wonder whether councillors even got to see this paper? Here’s the important page based on Nillumbik’s share of $4.78 million. When the maths are done for $7.1 million then the interest is astronomical.

What is required is the complete tearing apart of all financial records by a government appointed forensic accountant. More importantly a full blow by blow costing for every single nail that has gone into GESAC. We have absolutely no idea of how our money has been spent, nor how much it costs to keep this place running on a daily basis, nor how many members have not resigned once the novelty has worn off, nor how many staff are being paid for by residents, nor how much subsidy the Warriors are receiving from ratepayers. The questions are multitudinous and the responses non existent. That is councillors’ jobs – to not just ask, but demand and then to ensure that residents know exactly how and why their funds have been spent in this unaccountable and non-transparent fashion!

For starters no amount of spin, bluff and bluster can hide the fact that GESAC has incurred additionals costs that have never been either reported upon, nor directly associated with its construction. We highlight just a few:

Lawyers for the ‘liquidated damages’. What happens when council is perhaps found liable to pay the difference, plus punitive damages, plus more interest?
Why isn’t the construction of an electricity substation, plus road works and traffic lights included in the ‘construction costs’? The figure of $41.2 million is thus not only disingenuous, but totally bogus when one considers the money that has been forked out to facilitate the actual ‘construction’.
What are the insurance costs? why the need for a higher purchase agreement?
What are the heating, cooling, cleaning, maintenance, etc. costs? How much does this tally per day, per week, per month?

Over to you councillors! Do you have the courage?

February 20, 2013

Residents: Always The Last To Know!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

From Hansard (19th February,2012) –

Caulfield Racecourse Centre Park: opening
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—It is my great pleasure to rise to address the Minister for Environment and Climate Change in my adjournment matter tonight. The action I seek is that the minister attend my electorate on 12 April to open the new Caulfield Racecourse Centre Park. The Caulfield Racecourse is Crown land, granted in 1885 for use as a racecourse and public open space. There is no doubt that previous governments have delivered in creating a racecourse that is recognised as a premium racetrack on the world stage and is an international icon. However, previous governments at all levels have missed the opportunity to provide public access to this Crown land for the residents of Caulfield in the form of open space and a public park. The failure to deliver public space at the Caulfield racetrack has been evident for over a century.

One of my major priorities since coming to office has been negotiating a better deal for residents to access Caulfield Racecourse. I have been working closely with the City of Glen Eira and the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) to achieve this result. This has led to a $1.8 million investment by the Melbourne Racing Club to create a new park in the centre, which will feature five recreational precincts and great amenities, including a junior footy oval, a 1.6 kilometre running track, exercise stations, a dog-off-leash park, a boardwalk, a barbecue area and toilet facilities, to name a few.

I am pleased to report that on 21 April this new park will be open, providing a great new recreational facility for my electorate and for the wider community. To celebrate this I am working with the MRC, the Rotary Club of Glen Eira and the Caulfield Park Community Bank to host a community day and fun run as a fundraiser for local charities and organisations. This will be known as the Caulfield Racecourse Run and Community Day.

Charities struggle to raise funds to carry out important work in difficult economic times. I know this is a challenge, and I thought it would be good to bring all these community organisations together for one big fundraising push. The fun run will consist of a 3.5 kilometre walk and an 8.5 kilometre run around the Caulfield Racecourse. Charities, community groups, schools and clubs can register, create a team and fundraise for their own organisation. This will be a great community day which will celebrate the redevelopment of the park in the centre of the famous Caulfield icon, the racecourse. The day will see the community come together for a fun run, entertainment and festivities to celebrate what will be a memorable occasion.

We hope this facility will be the beginning of a conversation to bring local Caulfield residents to the public open space at the racecourse and create further interest in developing this great public asset for community benefit. Most importantly, many residents who I meet are still unaware that this public open space within the Caulfield Racecourse exists, and events like this are an ideal way to inform them. The City of Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any municipality in Melbourne. What we have done will hopefully make the best of this new park at the Caulfield Racecourse, and this event will help to deliver this.
I repeat my call on the minister to join me at this new park in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse on 21 April and share in this historic moment.”

PS: Council does not appear to have any problem in doing the bidding of the MRC, via publishing the Agenda for the next trustee’s meeting on their website. This is set down for March 27th – five weeks off! Yet, they cannot inform the public of the above event. Residents have to learn about this by scouring Hansard!

February 19, 2013

Earth To Council!

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

Media Releases 2013

Council submission on VCAT fee regulations

18 Feb 2013
Stonnington Mayor, Cr Matthew Koce has made a submission to the State Government Department of Justice on behalf of Stonnington Council in relation to proposed VCAT fee increases.

The submission responded to the Regulatory Impact Statement for proposed VCAT fees regulation, released in December 2012.

Cr Koce said: “Council is concerned that several of the fee increases proposed appear out of step with the key objectives of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal which is to provide the community with access to a civil justice system which is both accessible and cost-effective.

“In particular, fee increases for ‘objector appeals’ and mediation will be particularly hard on ordinary residents, who unlike property developers, are unable to claim the cost of VCAT fees as a tax deduction or business expense. These proposed fee increases are substantial and risks placing the justice system beyond the reach of many Victorians.

“Cost-effective dispute resolution is, and must remain, a fundamental objective of VCAT because VCAT was established to provide affordable and fair access to justice for the whole Victorian community.”

Mayor, Cr Koce said: “Council is concerned that the Regulatory Impact Statement mentioned VCAT could introduce mediation fees – to be set at a level equivalent to 45 per cent of the estimated cost of carrying out the activity.

“Increased fees should not be imposed for mediation. Mediation provides a useful tool in resolving issues without the formality of a hearing, coupled with obvious time and cost savings to all parties. Increasing such fees may dissuade participants to utilise this option.”

However, no objections were proposed in relation to VCAT fee increases for major cases, large scale developments and enforcement orders relating to breaches of the Planning Scheme.

Cr Koce said: “The fee increases for some permit applicants appear relative to the cost of a larger development. It is considered appropriate that this fee is increased based on the cost of the development (i.e. increasing after both $1m and $5m) – which is generally proportionate to the resources required to deal with the matter.”

He said that in terms of Enforcement Orders, Council took no objection to a fee increase as Council can recoup such costs as part of such applications to the Tribunal (in the instance of successfully being able to establish a breach of the Planning Scheme).

The submission letter is available on the Stonnington website at www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/news-and-information/whats-new
Media Contact: Media and Communications Coordinator T: (03) 8290 1113 M: 0408 523 708

February 16, 2013

GESAC: More Tales, Fibs & Spin

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

Here we go again! Officer reports that are incomplete, inaccurate and which deliberately neglect to mention, much less highlight, crucial factors that would impact on any decision making in a normal and transparent council. Add to this councillors who either haven’t been adequately briefed, or the more plausible explanation we believe, is that they quite willingly go along with this deception.

We are referring to the Council Meeting of 18^th December, 2012 when Council passed the resolution that another $600,000 (estimated) be spent on GESAC car parking. This is on top of the near $1,000,000 already spent in extending the existing Bailey Reserve car parking and to ‘relocate’ the playground. The motion that was passed in December read:

Crs Lipshutz/Lobo

That Council endorse Option A, additional car parking on the Bailey Reserve side of Gardeners Road, in order to provide additional car parking around Bailey Reserve. That Council continue to examine Option C, timed parking restrictions on the Bailey Reserve side of East Boundary Road, and Option D, East Boundary Road Median Strip parking.

Cr Sounness was the only councillor to vote against the motion. We also remind readers that the argument against the installation of an underground car park was the estimated cost of $1.5 million dollars. Now, when council has already spent this amount and it still hasn’t solved the problem, the argument switches to the laughable claim that underground parking was rejected primarily because women did not feel safe! No such excuse was proffered at the time of the original decision back in July 2011, yet it surfaces on this occasion. Some real scraping of the bottom of the ideas barrel here! Then there’s Lobo’s claim that ‘safety’ is an issue and therefore council is unable to ‘consult’. Quite ludicrous we think. From the architect’s drawing it would appear that cars will be parking perpendicular to the reserve. That means that they will have to either reverse into the spot, or more than likely, reverse back out into Gardiner’s Rd in order to exit. This street is also a bus route and it is extremely narrow. (So much for at least 2 years of”advocating’ that the bus route be switched to East Boundary Rd!) So we now will have cars reversing, buses passing, kids alighting, – all on a narrow residential street. Another great solution in averting ‘risk’.

The argument we love the best however is the one about councillors not wanting to see poor old cricketers and baseballers having to park in ‘residential streets’, or worse, Centre Rd. According to this logic, Gardiner’s Rd does not qualify as a ‘residential street’. Readers should go back to the December ‘debate’ and have a good laugh at the appalling level of argument, and plain old humbug. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/gesac-read-weep/)

But it gets even worse in terms of what happened on December 18^th and the total failure of this administration and its councillors to be transparent and accountable. There cannot be any excuse for failing to fully inform residents that more open space will be lost and that bitumen and car parking are the priorities in Glen Eira regardless of cost. Here’s what was not written or stated:

Throughout the entire officer’s report there is NOT A SINGLE MENTION of the fact that open space WITHIN BAILEY RESERVE will be diminished and turned into more car parking spots. The only sentence of any relevance on the issue is this feeble, and ultimately misleading one-liner – “A guiding principle has been to try to avoid any further reduction of public open space”.
Not one councillor in the ‘debate’ referred to the encroachment on Bailey Reserve itself. In fact, Magee proudly proclaimed: “WE’RE TAKING AWAY A BIT OF NATURE STRIP AND GETTING A MUCH NEEDED CAR PARK”. The photos below show that much, much more than a ‘bit of nature strip’ is going. Lipshutz in turn could only say that as ‘victims of our success’ that more car parks “won’t have any impact’ on the reserve. So much for accuracy, and so much for revealing all the facts.
Yet, the plan that was part of this item, makes it absolutely clear that Bailey reserve itself would be hacked to pieces and that more open space will be lost. Didn’t any councillor look at this? Didn’t the author of the item (unnamed of course!) look at the plan? Or was all this done in the hope that NO-ONE would bother looking at the detail so residents could once again be easily duped into believing the half-truths and mistruths that issue from this council?
Finally, what of the trees? The almost illegible table on the left hand side of the diagram states ‘No. of trees to be retained’ and ‘no. of trees to be removed’. The actual figures are impossible to read. Yet, no-one even uttered the word ‘trees’ and it does not appear anywhere in the officer’s written report. The plan certainly has no trees actually included in the diagram! The root systems have been badly mauled and it would not be any surprise to find council’s arborist in the very near future reporting that the tree is “unstable’ or “diseased” or “unsafe” and that it has to be removed! After all, this is Glen Eira so what are a few fine gum specimens, or other long established trees, or even recent landscaping that cost the earth no doubt, compared to a GESAC car-park extension?

We’ve visited the site in the past few days and below are some photos taken over several days of the ongoing works. We’ve decided to present them in their full glory, rather than as a slide show. Please note:

Photo 1 displays the area cordoned off WITHIN BAILEY RESERVE before work started
Photo 2 displays the original footpath/nature strip which is located to the LEFT of the gum and has now been removed
Other photos reveal the new ‘path’ that is well inside Bailey Reserve itself, plus the shredded roots of the gum.

February 15, 2013

From A ‘Seriously Concerned Resident’: Part 2

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

Here is the second part of our email which continues on from the quotes derived from the 2002 Housing Strategy.

“There is plenty more in this document and it reads well. I have just concentrated on residential development, population estimates, and the public realm issue in the wider sense. It would be good if Councillors concerned with overdevelopment, high rate of residential development and the type of development and its consequential very high population increase could pursue the review of the Housing and Residential Development Strategy. It only needs 5 Councillors and it seems that Cr Lobo and Cr Sounness, as the one with some town planning background could start the ball rolling by first asking how many action points have been implemented. So how did Glen Eira actually develop? Let me expand on the issues raised and its problems.

The residential development is always greater than forecast by a significant amount. In 1996 it was 300 dwellings per year, 2001 over 600 dwellings per year, and 2006 and beyond nearly 900 dwellings per year. And the current building applications are close to 1200 per year. It is not clear if building application means 1 dwelling or a number of dwellings. Clearly, the rate of development is much greater than anticipated and there has to be a reason for that. Is the Council doing its job to ensure that infrastructure, public realm and services are there for such a large development rate?

The result of all that development is the population explosion in Glen Eira (http://profile.id.com.au/glen-eira/population-estimate ). In 1996 it was around 115,000 with projected figures of 121,000 by 2020. In 2001 it was 123,000 with a forecast of 130,000 by 2021. In 2006 it was 130,000 with estimates of 136,000 by 2011, 148,000 by 2021 and 157,000 by 2031 (forecast2.id.com.au/templates/forecast2/Clients/133Glen/PDF/10.pdf ).

In the 2002 document the capacity for multi-dwelling developments (lot availability) was estimated to be in the order of 10,000 dwellings to be used up by 2020. This estimate depends on the density of dwellings built. We suggest it is a gross underestimate. Over 6,000 dwellings have already been built. The service reports indicate that 80% of those are in the housing diversity areas, so 5,000 dwellings have already taken up the available lots. With greater density being built one can safely assume another 10,000 dwellings can be built in the housing diversity areas. The population under such condition is likely to grow to 160,000 by 2021 and 180,000 by 2031. Properly conducted structure plans as suggested in 2002 would elucidate more accurately the lot availability and density of dwellings. As it is now, Councillors and the community are left deliberately in darkness.

But there is more. The sleeper issue is the minimal change area. Once the pressure is on to develop it will. So what is the capacity for developments in this area since it is 4 times bigger than housing diversity area. The 2002 report gives a figure of 5,000 dwelling opportunity for low density developments in housing diversity area. With the existing rules for dual occupancy, single or double storey units, flats and subdivision, all allowed in minimal change area, the end point of 20,000 dwellings is not unreasonable. Assuming a very low no. of 2 to 3 people per dwelling we get a whopping population of over 220,000 perhaps by 2041. The population density in 1996 was 29.7 per hectare growing to a 41.4 by 2021 and 56.9 persons per hectare by 2041. Clearly, such an influx of people with nearly double the density will have major implications on the character, lifestyle and liveability of Glen Eira. Is there evidence of minimal change areas developments? YES. Take Bentleigh East with the largest minimal change area and the smallest population density. The dwelling growth of medium density housing between 1996 and 2011 was 127% as opposed to only 26% in Glen Eira overall i.e. more than 4 times the average. Councillors should ask for details of each suburb growth patterns in terms of medium density and high density. The pressure to develop is on everywhere. What are we building? Is the Council ready for it?

Nearly all developments outlined are suitable for small time developers, who like Glen Eira Council focus on a single project at a time. Koornang Rd Carnegie has exceeded its electricity power capacity and requires a new sub-station to be built. Jemena, the infrastructure provider will not provide more electricity than necessary if it is a case-by-case approach rather than an area approach. Ormond has a number of recently built apartment blocks erected from concrete. When you flush a toilet, you can hear it throughout the building. Quality is not there and they will become rental slums. Ormond – Glen Huntly reached the dubious distinction of the greatest population density increase of suburbs in Melbourne (http://chartingtransport.com/2012/09/21/first-look-2011-density/ ). Why? And what about water supply and drainage? Are we sufficiently ready for the over 200,000 people living in Glen Eira?

Now to the level crossings of which Glen Eira has 9. Work on North Rd level crossing begins with Murrumbeena Rd being next. The Department of Premier and Cabinet website says: “A program of level crossing removal will contribute to improved productivity and safety outcomes in Melbourne and improved land use outcomes by supporting urban renewal to cater for Melbourne’s growth.” (http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/index.php/featured/infrastructure-australia-update/ia-appendix). One of the criteria for priority level crossing removal is urban renewal, which means more residential development in the area. Lowering of the rail provides more opportunities than having a flyover rail line, although it is probably cheaper. With $100m to remove a level crossing the State Government is looking for funding from private corporations. They are willing to do that for a price (http://www.afr.com/p/national/cash_cocktail_for_melbourne_rail_Sgxu1YvQcayPIEk9lqWwoK ). If private capital is to fund the level crossing removal then what development would cover such a cost?

Caulfield Village development gives a clue to that with about 7 to 10 times the value of level crossing removal i.e. $700m to $1billion. That would provide a huge injection of capital into the Ormond area. Businesses and traders will support it wholeheartedly. The result for residents may not be that great. The Dorothy Ave bridge would disappear and Dorothy Ave, Royal Ave, Katandra St, and the land around Ormond station redeveloped. This development is for the ‘big boys’. Similar consideration goes for Murrumbeena Rd. Of course if the Committee for Melbourne would have their way they would prefer to do a sequence of level crossings e.g. from Caulfield to Patterson (Frankston line) and from Caulfield to Oakleigh (Dandenong line). Each level crossing removal could add few thousand people into the area. With 9 of them in Glen Eira we could see another 20,000 to 30,000 people. How long would it take? Committee for Melbourne claims they can do it in 20 years. So by 2041 we could see a population of 250,000 (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2011/08/16/should-replacing-level-crossings-be-given-high-priority/).

One has to ask how all this development affects the Public Realm, which is the responsibility of every Local Government. Glen Eira Council has no definition of Public Realm and has a narrow focus on Open Space. Stonnington Council has developed a Public Realm Strategy (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/your-council/strategies/ ) – “This Strategy extends the typical open space strategy, which includes ‘green spaces’ such as gardens and parks, to the broader understanding of the public realm, which includes all external space that is available for public use”. And it illustrates the concept with the following diagram

The diagram illustrates the context in which this Strategy operates. The outer layer identifies the broader State policies that govern public space policy in Victoria. The next layer identifies the Council Plan as Stonnington’s key strategic document. The next layer shows both the Municipal Public Health Plan and the Municipal Strategic Statement. The Public Realm follows, and includes streets, parks, hubs and links. Stonnington’s public realm is further divided into suburbs and the many elements from across Council that form the core of the Public Realm Strategy.

Glen Eira Council is conducting a Survey to review its Open Space Strategy – “Open space is all publicly owned land that is set aside primarily for recreation, passive outdoor enjoyment and nature conservation” and the Strategy “includes planning ahead for the provision and design of open space to meet the needs of the anticipated future population”. How they can do it without an integrated approach to planning and by letting developers drive the City growth is a question to be asked. When one examines Glen Eira Council Strategies one gets the feeling it is for administrative/public relations purposes. Look at the Stonnington Council Strategies and one feels more confident in their ability to plan comprehensively and manage their plans in an integrated way.

Perhaps we may as well ask again after Cr Lobo – ‘are we building Calcutta or Richmond’. Over to you Councillors.

February 14, 2013

Definitely A Do Nothing Council!

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

We thought it might be extremely informative following our last few posts to investigate what’s been happening in other councils in terms of reviewing and updating their Housing Strategies. What a surprise! Countless other municipalities are at it hammer and tongs and their reviews include lengthy periods of community consultations ranging up to a year! Please note, we are not commenting on the quality, processes, outcomes, nor the various strategies themselves. We are simply highlighting that unlike Glen Eira City Council, these municipalities have not been sitting on their hands doing nothing. Glen Eira has been stagnant since well before 2002 and bases its policies on statistics that are woefully out of date. There are only two possible conclusions here: either this council is entirely incompetent, or the strategy is to do nothing whilst Rome burns because it benefits development and more development.

We remind readers that a bare minimum of the recommendations from the 1998 Open Space Strategy has been implemented. Even less has been implemented from the 2002 Housing Strategy. The sham of the Planning Scheme Review and its recommendations are also in limbo – the only things that have been pushed through facilitate further development! This is Glen Eira in a nutshell. Maintain the status quo and do nothing to safeguard local neighbourhoods, social amenity, and so forth.

Here are the URLs plus the dates that accompany other councils’ reviews of their housing strategies:

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Draft_Housing_Strategy_April_2012.pdf (April 2012)

https://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/Housing%20Strategy%20%28Adopted%2016%20March%202009%29.pdf (March 2009)

http://www.cardinia.vic.gov.au/files/Strategic_planning/HS_PP1_IssuesPaper_Feb2009.pdf (Feb. 2009)

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/planning–building/studies-strategies-and-guidelines/Housing-Strategy/ (October 2010)

http://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/page/Page.aspx?Page_id=7505 (October 2011)

http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=9798 (2012 – current)

www.brimbank.vic.gov.au/…/Adopted_Brimbank_Housing_Strategy… (August 2012)

http://www.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/Residents/Planning/Planning_Strategies_Studies/Housing_Strategy (May 2009)

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/default/o24750.pdf (June 2007)

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/hanc.review.html (current)

http://www.campaspe.vic.gov.au/hardcopy/112123_190784.pdf (March 2011)

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/policiesstrategies/article.asp?Item=5332 (2005)

http://www.southgippsland.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.asp?Page_Id=1126 (current)

http://www.greaterdandenong.com/documents.asp?ID=23637&Title=Housing+Strategy (July 2012)

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/hanc.review.html (2012 – current)

February 13, 2013

From A ‘Seriously Concerned Resident’: Part 1

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

We’ve received a very long email from ‘Seriously Concerned Resident’ that we’ve split into two. In our view it makes for essential reading for all those people concerned about the policies and autocracy that is currently in power at this council. As a snapshot of what is happening we direct readers to http://profile.id.com.au/glen-eira/dwellings to realise the full extent of the impending disaster. Here is the ‘headline’ from this research:

Now for Seriously Concerned Resident’s email:

“Last week’s posts on the Council meeting reinforces the view that the Lipshutz/Hyams law as practiced in Glen Eira weakens this “government to represent and respond to the needs expressed by local communities” (for general discussion see epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/cjlg/article/ ).

The arguments presented by Crs Lipshutz and Hyams have little to do with community representation or being ‘fair, just, and equitable’. It raises suspicion that the Council favours the rich, powerful, or influential. The long term neglect to plan and govern in favour of ‘quasijudicial’ or case-by-case decision making is simply to diminish the democratic nature of a Council. Best example is the Local Law provisions, which is more akin to some kind of autocratic regime rather than a democratically elected local government. The best proof is that there is no other Council in Victoria that have such draconian limitations on Councillors as we have in Glen Eira, and the delegated immense power of the administration. The Local Laws in other Councils tend towards ‘participatory democracy’ elements. Glen Eira tends towards ‘autocratic’ administration elements. The other problem with the arrangements in Glen Eira are the opportunities for corruption as explained by Prof Graycar (http://cass.anu.edu.au/story/when-local-government-decisions-are-sale ) “For example, too much discretion devolved to decision makers can lead to abuse, so can a highly complex process involving excessive time periods and a lack of transparency in who makes decisions and how they are made.” The building development decisions made by open Council are few in comparison to total number of developments. Most are made by staff and the Delegated Planning Committee with residents or Councillors absent.

The more important issue is that of planning for the future. ‘gleneira’ posts and ‘Reprobate’ are commenting on those at length in here. I would like to refer to 2002 Report on ‘Housing and Residential Development Strategy’. It is a well written document strategically focussed and outlining ( www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/files/bdb7243f-fca5-489e-89d3-a08301 ) objectives, strategies, and implementation actions. It also tries to determine the end point of developments in a section 4.5 Dwelling Supply Analysis. Whether one agrees with the plan or not such plans should be reviewed or updated at least every 5 years. That has not happened in 2007 or 2012. The vision for Glen Eira has not changed since 1996 (Glen Eira 2020). Other Councils have done at least one vision revision since creation of amalgamated Cities. The problem with not reviewing is that the predictions are usually wrong and making decisions on a case-by-case basis catches up on things like infrastructure, traffic congestion, provision for parks, sporting facilities, and other community amenities etc. Ad hoc developments allow developers to control the rate and the type of development nilly willy case-by-case. The questions arise: – what kind of city does the community want to end up with? And do the Councillors know that? Does the administration work directed towards such an end point?

Cr Lobo remarked in relation to some proposals ‘are we in Calcutta or Richmond?’ And so we may well ask. Here are some quotes from the 2002 Housing and Residential Development Strategy:

· The total private dwelling stock in Glen Eira in 1996 was 51,060 dwellings. The State Government predicts an increase in dwellings from 53,000 in 2000 to 59,000 in 2021 (approximately 300 dwellings per year). However, these trends may be underestimated. Over the last five years, 600 dwellings a year have been approved by both Council and VCAT.

· A major issue for Glen Eira is how additional dwellings will be accommodated over the next 20 years. New dwellings could potentially effect existing neighbourhood character, traffic and parking, energy consumption, infrastructure, access to services and facilities and meeting housing needs.

· The State Government estimates about 500 dwellings per year between 2000-2009. About 600 dwellings per year are currently approved in Glen Eira.

· While Council targeted a particular concentration of dwelling activity in areas designated for higher densities in the Municipal Strategic Statement, such as urban villages and neighbourhood centres, development is spread across most of the City.

· Two main locations for development in Glen Eira are infill development and major redevelopment sites. Overall, major redevelopment will make a small contribution to new housing in Glen Eira as many major redevelopment sites are nearly fully constructed. This means infill development will constitute the majority of Glen Eira’s future development. Growing community concern exists over the impact of infill development on existing neighbourhoods, including character, amenity and infrastructure.

· Through its planning role, Council has some control over the type and location of residential development. However, Council has an even more important role to ensure the community’s visions and aspirations are reflected in planning policy.

· Council can ensure that housing policy represents the aspirations of its community. Council can also enhance the liveability of Glen Eira’s residential areas by maintaining and enhancing parks, improving the public realm (eg, street trees) and maintaining roads, footpaths and the physical infrastructure.

· Develop structure plans and urban design frameworks for the neighbourhood centres of Alma Village, Balaclava Junction (Caulfield North), Bentleigh East, Caulfield South Glen Huntly, Hughesdale, McKinnon, Moorabbin, Murrumbeena, and Ormond.

· Develop suburb plans for each suburb which integrates land use and development planning, with planning for infrastructure, capital works, recreation, parks and gardens, street trees and business development.

· Investigate further mechanisms for development contributions.

· Involve the community in public realm streetscape improvement works to enhance the residential amenity and suburban character.

· Investigate opportunities to increase open space in locations where deficiencies have been identified in the Glen Eira Open Space Long Term Strategy.

· In 1996, there were 47,000 households in Glen Eira (Department of Infrastructure, 1998b).The number of households is growing at a faster rate than the population. The State Government has predicted that Glen Eira will have 58,000 households by 2021 (Department of Infrastructure, 2000e).

· Building activity has remained steady in Glen Eira since the building boom began in 1997 averaging 675 dwellings a year. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, separate houses account for the majority (58 per cent) of approvals in Glen Eira between 1996 and 2001. While Council targeted particular concentration of dwelling activity in areas designated for higher densities in the Municipal Strategic Statement (such as urban villages and neighbourhood centres), development is spread across most of the City.

· Infill development will constitute the majority of Glen Eira’s development. Community concern over the impact of infill development on existing neighbourhoods is growing. Depending on the individual developments, infill development has the potential to impact on access to sunlight, daylight and privacy. It can also affect neighbourhood character.

· At the 1996-2001 average annual rate of development of almost 600, the total potential stock of 10,864 dwellings (in housing diversity areas with higher density) will last for 18 years (to 2020).

· ‘Low density’ scenario produced 9,820 new dwellings in total. If only half the lots were developed in this scenario, then only 5,000 new dwellings would be developed.

· Glen Eira has been growing since it was established in 1994. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that Glen Eira’s population was nearly 126,000 in June 2001 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001). The State Government estimates the population will increase to 130,000 by 2021 (Department of Infrastructure, 2001e). However, given recent levels of residential development this figure may understate the likely population growth in Glen Eira.”

Our comment: ask yourselves how many of the above ‘promises’ have been investigated, implemented, or even partially achieved? Why not? The only constant in this sad, sad saga has been the ongoing administration.

February 12, 2013

The Truth & Nothing But The Truth?

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

We are becoming increasingly concerned at what can only be described as the deliberate hoodwinking of an unsuspecting public. Our comments relate to one item from the regular VCAT Watch – namely the 8 Railway Parade, Murrumbeena decision. This was an application for a 3 storey and 15 dwellings development.

Reading the officer’s report, residents could be forgiven for believing that council has done everything in its power to halt this development. We’re told that the Delegated Planning Committee refused the application but that VCAT ordered a permit be granted. So far this is the truth. But it’s not the ENTIRE TRUTH! What is not revealed in the officer’s report is:

Amended plans were submitted and it was these plans that were under consideration by VCAT
Council fully accepted the amended plans
The resident objector did not show up to the hearing and in fact was the owner of another 3 storey neighbouring development. He claimed amongst other things, that this proposed building would now ‘overshadow’ his.

Here is the important part of the officer’s report –

“The application was refused by Council on the grounds that the proposal did not adequately respond to its context in terms of urban character. Of particular concern was its poor transition to the adjoining property to the east, excessive visual bulk and failure to satisfy a number of ResCode standards. Thus the refusal was premised on a poor design response rather than a policy breach.

 The Tribunal identified that the type of development proposed is to be anticipated in this location given its strategic context. It further identified that the implementation of the Housing Diversity Area Policy is clearly demonstrated by the recently constructed three-storey apartment building on the neighbouring property located to the east.

 Ultimately the Tribunal determined that a three-storey building is acceptable on this site given its strategic context and the two and three-storey apartment buildings on neighbouring properties. Furthermore the Tribunal considered that the contemporary design and materials would be an appropriate response to the emerging character of the area.

 The Tribunal therefore determined to overturn Council’s refusal and direct that a planning permit should be granted.”

The above extracts seek, we believe, to perpetuate the myth that all the blame should be laid at the feet of VCAT. Council is merely the poor, impotent victim where its decisions are continually overturned. Please note that we are not commenting on the application’s merits, nor the merits of the member’s decision. We’re not even commenting on the merit of the final agreement between Council and developer. What we are commenting on is the failure of this report to include all the salient facts.

When we go to what the member actually said, we find the following:

“On considering the amended plans, the Council finds the changes overcome its concerns with respect to the proposal. It now supports the grant of a permit subject to conditions. Pegasus Realty supports the grant of the permit subject to the Council’s conditions.”

“The Council submits that the proposal is now worthy of a permit. It submits that the land is strategically well located within a NAC that is well served by public transport and in an area where increased densities is encouraged. It also submits that the changes to the plans, particularly the increased setbacks and reduction in the size of the basement, result in an outcome that is acceptable.”

“To the extent that there is non-compliance with standard B6, I agree with both the Council and Mr McGurn that it is minor and acceptable given the angled alignment of the land’s frontage.”

Here are some questions to consider:

Why couldn’t readers be told that the member was considering amended plans?
Why couldn’t readers be told that council was accepting of these amended plans?
Why couldn’t we be told that council argued strongly that the site was ‘strategically well located’ and that ‘increased densit(y) is encouraged’?
Why couldn’t readers be told the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/1843.html

February 12, 2013

An Answer Versus A Response!

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

We have long bemoaned the failure of this council to actually ANSWER a public question. More often than not, residents receive replies that neatly dodge the central concerns of the query or, the response is padded out with superfluous nonsense and irrelevancies. The most common tactic, is the tendency to engage in semantics. When it suits, council seems quite incapable of understanding the question. On only two occasions from the recent past, has any councillor objected to either the tone or content of these answers – presumably penned by Paul Burke. They sit there dumbstruck, and hence complicit in allowing such practices to continue. To add further insult to injury, councillors often do not even get the time to READ the public questions prior to the council meeting. At most, they might spend 5 minutes at the end of their assembly meetings and are confronted with the already written responses. If there have been numerous questions, then there is no time to even read the responses and to contemplate their import. None of this is good enough.

We’ve decided to keep a running score on public questions and their responses. Readers will be able to access all questions/responses from our new category in the header – ‘Public questions’. They will be arranged in chronological order of council meetings and be classified according to our categories – ie governance, transport, performance, etc. After each council meeting we will also be featuring a separate post on some or all of these questions and responses. If appropriate, we will comment directly on the responses given and invite, as always, your feedback. Here is one from last week’s effort:

QUESTION 1 – Glen Eira Council is reported as having made a submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee investigating Development Contributions under the Planning and Environment Act. Will Council make this submission public and accessible to all? When was this issue discussed with councillors?”

ANSWER: The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “In September 2012 Councils were asked a standard list of specific technical questions relating to the DPCD position paper entitled Standard Development Contributions Paper – A Preferred Way Forward. Council officers provided answers to these technical questions in October 2012.

Councillors were informed of this during that time.

It is understood that Councils and members of the public will be given opportunities in the future to make further submissions.”

COMMENT: The question is clearly not answered! Will residents get to see the submission? Your guess is as good as ours! Not for the first time are formal council submissions done in secret. Secondly, if this submission did involve councillors being “informed” then why, oh why is there no mention of it in the relevant records of assembly? Or was it a tiny one liner in some briefing paper that could so very easily be overlooked by councillors? Did councillors in fact ever discuss this issue? Did they have any role in the writing of the document, vetting some of the ideas/suggestions, did they in fact have any say whatsoever? Or worse, did they even know this was happening?

As an aside, we remind readers that Glen Eira in its wisdom scrapped the levy. Thus, we assume that no monies are being collected from developers for drainage and other infrastructure whilst high rise apartments are mushrooming everywhere. The State Government has now released its response to the committee’s report and is again seeking submissions. We note that other councils have publicised this submission process. Glen Eira of course, keeps it under wraps. Please see: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/130727/Fair-and-simple-development-contributions.pdf

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates