GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 7, 2012

Censorship & Public Questions

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

For the second time in a row a resident’s public question has been edited. Vital information that clarifies the circumstances is thus being with-held, resulting in answers that are anything but accurate and reflecting what actually happened. The full question was:

Please find below two public questions for this week’s Council meeting (4 September 2012).

Please publish each public question in the Minutes in full. Please refrain from editing my public questions.

Public Question 1

I refer to my earlier public question I posed directly to Mr Lipshutz for Council meeting 14 August 2012.

To recap, a group of Rowan Street Elsternwick residents met with Councillor Lipshutz on Monday 4 June 2012 regarding Council’s decision to install 2 hr parking restrictions in the street based on only 8 of the total 15 properties responding to Council’s consultation.

Councillor Lipshutz in his reply to the public question at the 14 August Council meeting indicated that he had advised the residents group that Council Transport Planning department was to hold off implementation for a month. The installation was completed on 25 July to the absolute shock & amazement of the residents.

However, Councillor Lipshutz, we must beg to differ, following our meeting with you on 4 June or in subsequent exchange of emails, you gave NO INDICATION of a timeframe what so ever. In fact we the residents kept you informed frequently via email of progress we were making in collecting all 15 residents survey responses. In fact out last email to you on 13 July 2012 indicated that we had collected all but 2 responses – at that stage the majority of respondents had indicated clearly that they were NOT IN FAVOUR of the restrictions.

Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is: When and how (via email/letter?) did you inform the residents group of the one month timeframe?

COUNCIL’S VERSION AND RESPONSE –

Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is: When and how (via email/letter?) did you inform the residents group of the one month timeframe?”

Cr Lipshutz responded to your Public Question at the Council Meeting. He said:

“ There was no so called residents group but rather there was a meeting with two residents of which you were one. As you will recall, following a questionnaire by Council, there were more non responses than responses and of the responses there was a majority that did not oppose parking restrictions being imposed. You may also recall that I advised you that if you wished to halt Council imposing those parking restrictions it would be necessary for you to move with alacrity in providing Council with evidence that a clear majority of residents opposed those restrictions. You undertook to do so and I accordingly requested that Council withhold action.

Council acceded to my request and initially there was no time frame discussed as it was my understanding that inasmuch as you were being proactive in obtaining responses there would be little delay.

I am informed that a period of 6 weeks ensued without the foreshadowed responses and accordingly Council thereupon proceeded. This took place at a time when I was on leave from Council and overseas.

The arrangement to withhold action was never open ended one and given that you did not comply with your end of the arrangement Council was not prepared to wait indefinitely. The ball was very much in your court to demonstrate that a clear majority of residents opposed the implementation of parking restrictions and it was not for Council to wait indefinitely.”

SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

“Please outline Council’s current parking restrictions enforcement strategy for Elsternwick. Please also provide statistics and data (i.e. frequency of inspection by date by name of street/road by result of enforcement activity (i.e. parking fine issued and amount or no parking fine) of Council parking restrictions enforcement activity in Elsternwick for 2011-12 & 2012-13 to date.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Council enforces parking restrictions uniformly across the municipality. The fundamentals applying to enforcement include:-

 Ensuring residential streets in proximity of shopping centres are balancing the parking demands of residents, shoppers and shop keepers alike.

 Placing an emphasis on safety related offences in general.

 Placing an emphasis on school crossings and drop off/pick up around schools.

 Ensuring a turnover of customer car parking aimed at improving the economic viability of shopping centres.

The specific statistical data you requested is not available in the form you have requested it.”

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

“Has Glen Eira City Council received a claim against it for a sum of $4.2M for incompleted payments to GESAC’s contractors or does Glen Eira City Council feel so aggrieved by the work undertaken by it’s contractor that it has withheld over 10% of the money it owes?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Agenda Item 9.20 in this Meeting is the Finance Report to the end of July 2012.

That Report states that Council had paid $36.99m against the contract awarded for $41.2m. The Report also states that the contractor had applied for adjudication under the Security of Payment Act. The application was for $4.2m. It would not be correct to say that the application involved either “incomplete payments” or “withholding money Council owes”.

The adjudication has been completed. As at today, Council has paid $39.99m against the construction contract that was let for $41.2m. The contract provides for processes to determine matters in dispute. These include claims which would result in deductions in Council’s favour as well as claims which would result in additional payments. Those processes are underway. Each monthly Finance report will include the status of expenditure under the contract at that time.

GESAC continues to cover all its operating costs and make a contribution towards the costs of borrowings.

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

“I notice that the Crs Forge and Penhalluriack have erected a billboard pledging zero rate increases. I ask Cr Forge what services and capital works she intends to cut in order to achieve this outcome, and whether she has in fact previously voted in favour of rate rises. If Cr Forge is unable to answer this question at the council meeting, I ask how can she justify making such a public pledge without knowing how it will be achieved.”

Cr Forge responded to your Public Question at the Council Meeting. She said:

“There are many avenues that Council can reduce expenditure which would contribute to limiting additional rate increases. A good start would be to reduce new staff hirings and to rationalise staff replacement of those who leave.

There is also a cost saving to be had by deferring capital works and infrastructure programs. eg. Item 9.15 of tonight’s Agenda where Council spent approx. $750.00 on the Murrumbeena Park Play Space. We have to balance what is spent on ‘essentials’, viv a vis what would be ‘nice’ or ‘prestigious to have!

In regard to your question whether voted in favour of rate increases? Yes, I have in the year 2010 – 2011, to help with the costs of financing the GESAC development. I was not on Council when the GESAC development was approved.

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

“My question relates to usage of the multi-purpose courts at GESAC and is in 2 parts: 1. It is clear to the casual observer when visiting GESAC that the courts are not utilised for significant periods of time during the weekend, therefore please advise what proportion of the hours allocated for use by the Warriors Basketball Club from Friday to Sunday are actually being utilised; 2. Given that the initial allocation was for only 12 months, how & when will interested parties be advised of the process to apply for allocations following expiry of the initial allocation.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“The indoor courts at GESAC are multi-use. They cater for netball, basketball, indoor soccer, other sports, all-abilities programs, gym classes and more. The courts are not only for basketball.

GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.

Most sports played in the indoor stadium are team sports which are played in Seasons. As it was, GESAC opened mid-season. The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened.

On 15 May 2012, Councillors were advised:

“Opening at short notice has been fine for individuals Opening at short notice has not been fine for Seasonal activities. Many Clubs and teams have commitments at other venues. Seasonal activities will get fully underway from the start of the next Season(s). This is true of all Seasonal sports. GESAC is arranging casual hire of the courts. ”

No Club has breached its allocation agreement. GESAC is covering all its operating costs.

The Warriors Basketball Club is operating in accordance with the Expression of Interest (EOI) accepted by Council. The Warriors are currently utilising the facility against the following allocation

 Fridays the facility is used between 6.30pm – 10 pm against the allocation of 6pm – 11pm. This is subject to game allocations from the Victorian Junior Basketball League as Friday night is primarily for representative basketball games.

 Saturdays the facility is used between 9am – 6.30pm against the allocation of 8am – 7pm

 Sundays the facility is used between 9am – 10pm against the allocation of 9am – 11pm

In these allocated periods, the Warriors are currently utilising 57.5 hours a week against the allocation of 88.5 hours. This equates to around 2 courts being in use at all times on average and has been growing since the facility opened.

As President of the McKinnon Basketball Association, you would know that the representative basketball season is currently in its finals period. Due to this it should be noted that representative squad training and representative games which make up a large proportion of the court use on Friday nights and Sunday morning and afternoons are currently greatly reduced.

In relation to part 2 of your question, all sports will be operating in new Seasons from October 2012 (or earlier). Council will be reviewing allocations after the Council has had the opportunity to properly assess the utilisation rates in the new seasons and learn from the experience of the start up phase at GESAC.

September 6, 2012

Sir John Monash Drive

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

This message was approved for distribution by the Office of the Campus Manager for and on behalf of the City of Glen Eira Council’s Major Projects Coordinator.

**********************************************************************************************

As part of Glen Eira City Council’s 2012/2013 Capital Works Program, Council has allocated funding to undertake traffic and pedestrian safety improvement works in Sir John Monash Drive, between Derby Rd and Princes Ave.

Works will include; renewal of the road pavement, footpaths, kerb and channel and underground drainage, two new flat top speed humps with incorporated zebra crossing points and pedestrian safety improvements linked to new streetscape improvements.

Works will commence the week starting 10 September and are anticipated to take 8 weeks to complete (weather permitting).

Sir John Monash Drive between Derby Rd and Princes Ave will be closed to all through traffic for the duration of the works. Access to the off-street car-park behind Coles and to the Building J car-park will be available at all times via Princes Ave.

There will be pedestrian access to shops and railway station ramps at all times during the works. Bus stops will be relocated to Derby Rd for the duration of the works with appropriate signage directing patrons to the temporary stops.

We understand that these works will be very disruptive but this is an important project undertaken by the City of Glen Eira to deliver long term benefits to the community.

For further information on the works, or any queries you may have through the duration of the works in Sir John Monash Drive, please contact City of Glen Eira Council’s Major Projects Coordinator, Mr Frank Romania, on 9524 3333 during normal office hours.

September 5, 2012

GESAC, Hansen & Yuncken & Lawyers Galore!

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

The black hole of GESAC is clearly getting bigger and bigger – despite all the assurances from Lipshutz and the other financial whiz kids on council. After enduring a quite nauseating performance by Lipshutz on the audit committee minutes and how much the Auditor General had praised council for its performance and how it is an example to other councils, some of the truth finally emerged about the Hansen and Yuncken call for their money through another report by the auditor general which highlighted the call for ‘adjudication’ by Hansen & Yuncken.

The past few financial reports have consistently stated that Council is withholding over $4 million dollars as part of the ‘liquidated damages’. The building contract was $41.2 million and up til last month council had only handed over approximately $37 million. We now learn that the adjudication has in fact forced council to cough up $3 million of the money it was holding back. But, there’s much, much more to this as we report below.

LIPSHUTZ: on the Audit Committee minutes – ‘we were praised for the transparent way we went about GESAC’….(Auditor General gave council) ‘profusive praise’ in how ‘we managed our finances’…’I was particularly chuffed and enthused’ as he said ‘we were an example to other councils’. …’leader in the field’…..

PILLING: reported on community grants and claimed that over $300,000 was given out (OUR COMMENT: note that this amount also includes government grants!!!!!)

PENHALLURIACK: said that he went to the Audit Committee meeting and that the Auditor General did praise Glen Eira but ‘it was in a non specific way’. Referred to a ‘report that the Auditor General has commissioned’ about GESAC and that there’s ‘an adjudication of almost $5 million dollars to be heard against Council…and that was in a separate report to the meeting’.

MAGEE: said he attended the meeting. Stated that council oversees a budget of over $100 million and over 130,000 residents. Council ‘very adequately allocates those funds’. Went on to explain about the external auditors and kept reassuring residents that the finances are being well handled. Stated that those in the gallery should be ‘well assured’ that the rates are ‘being well administered, well spent’. If money was being wasted then auditors would pick that up and ‘that’s not the case’.

HYAMS: asked Penhalluriack whether he said that ‘the Auditor General commissioned a report into GESAC’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘not into GESAC. He commissioned his own report’.

HYAMS: asked Newton whether the Auditor General ‘commissioned a report as described by Cr Penhalluriack’?

NEWTON: ‘Not into GESAC, no’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he was present and ‘did not hear anything of that nature’. Said that council’s got the money in the bank and that it then becomes ‘an issue between the builder and ourselves’. Claimed that none of this ‘comes as a surprise’ that it was ‘expected’. Went on again about the Auditor General and how council had a good ‘business plan’.

Towards the end of the meeting Hyams requested a report on the state of the basketball allocations at GESAC. Said that since GESAC opened in mid season that by the next meeting this situation should be ‘resolved’ and that the courts should be ‘in full operation’. Pilling seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

There was then one Public Question that asked ‘what proportion’ (of court time allocated to the Warriors from Friday to Sunday are actually) ‘being utilised’? Also wanted to know how interested parties would be advised about next years’ allocations since the Warrior one was for only 12 months.

The response was a wonderful sales job on what GESAC caters for; problems with builders, etc. Claimed that next season would see full use and that the warriors use of the courts was currently 57.5 hours instead of 80+ hours.

PENHALLURICK: SAID THAT ‘WE DIDN’T GET EARLY NOTICE OF THESE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS’ and that he would like to say something in ‘response to some of them’. Asked if the 57.5 hours ‘is being paid for’?

HYAMS: mumbled and fumbled his way through in response saying that the Local Law lets councillors put in individual responses but doesn’t allow ‘supplementary questions’ from councillors.

PENHALLURIACK: said that he would have provided his own answer ‘if I had notice of the question’. Went on to say that he was asking a question about the answer given.

HYAMS: ‘The Local Law doesn’t allow that’. Said that it could be a question on notice for next meeting.

PENHALLURIACK: claimed it was a silly local law. Hyams came back with you ‘probably voted for it’. Penhalluriack agreed.

Next public question asked about the liquidated damages and why council was withholding 10% of the money it owes to the builder. Hyams then read out the answer quoting the financial report which says that council has paid 36.99 million. Contractor had gone to adjudication for 4.2 million and that ‘it has been completed’. Said that council has now paid 39.99 million. Went on to say that the contract allows for these matters in dispute to be settled and that there are processes which could end up with council receiving money or facing ‘additional payments’….these processes are underway’.

COMMENT: These exchanges certainly make a mockery of Lipshutz’s claim that council has been ‘transparent’ in its dealings over GESAC. Further, we wonder if:

Glen Eira Debates hadn’t publicised the Hansen & Yuncken adjudication whether anything at all would have been stated
If Glen Eira Debates hadn’t publicised the issue would the public question have been asked and some form of answer supplied.
As far as the answer goes we still have major concerns. The door is still open for further penalties paid by council. Will Hansen and Yuncken claim interest on their money owed? Will they claim legal expenses? Will they sue for more money as Hyams indicated is a real possibility? Penhalluriack spoke about $5 million we remind readers.
What has this handover of $3 million done to the budget/cash flow especially when there’s another 3.1 million due for super top ups?
Have the Warriors actually paid a cent to council or have they been granted free access? What impact has this had on proposed income at GESAC?

There are countless questions that require straight forward answers. No spin, no obfuscation, and no porkies, and certainly no deft sleight of hand as evidenced by Lipshutz’s claim that he does not remember the Auditor General’s commissioned report being ‘discussed’ at the Audit Committee. We point out that perhaps this wasn’t DISCUSSED but presented in a pile of papers and reports that few councillors actually bothered to read?!!!!! We suspect that this is standard practice for this administration!

Finally we can only highlight again the tactics of withholding public questions until too late to respond and the recourse to gagging tactics via the lame excuse that the local law does not carry a provision for councillors to ask questions when they like! So much for open, transparent and accountable governance! Lawyers must be jumping up and down and rubbing their hands with glee over the prospect of unending work!

September 5, 2012

Patronising, Paternalistic & Pathetic!

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

Tonight’s council meeting was an absolute marathon. For this first report on the evening we will concentrate on only 1 item – the Akehurst report on the new Planning Zones. We’ve chosen to highlight this agenda item because it epitomises fully what is wrong with our council and the majority of its councillors. As per usual, the evening descended into grand farce revealing incompetence, spin, unbelievable arrogance and an attitude that was both patronising and insulting to residents. This is what happened.

Esakoff moved to accept the report plus the addition of the point that the motion only relates to the potential Council submission to the Minister’s review. Seconded by Pilling. Esakoff began by stating how fortunate this council was by already having in place the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change area zones. Her address was basically a regurgitation of the Akehurst report (verbatim in parts). There was no real mention of the loss of third party rights to object but the jargon of ‘as of rights’ and repeated verbatim the party line that ‘third party rights are not changing’.

PILLING: thought that there are a ‘lot of good points’ in that there will be surety about ‘height’ and that with council’s current policy there will be ‘a reasonable good fit’ with the government’s proposals. Emphasised the ‘similarities’ between the proposed zones and council’s planning policies and that ‘it can be made to work’.

MAGEE: spoke about the mixed use zone and that ‘the devil will be in the detail as to what’s allowed’….’can turn into being a 6, 7, or eight storey development in those zones’….’that’s where this council needs to be very careful’. Wondered why the government put the deadline date for submissions at 21st September and the results will be available after the election. Said he saw both ‘good points’ and ‘concerns’ but detail is lacking but ‘all in all I think it’s welcomed’.

TANG: called it a ‘double edged sword’ in that it did involve a loss of third party rights and council rights. Said that places of worship up to 250 square metres could now go in without third party rights. Said these are ‘quite drastic changes’ but the good points are that these are ‘cutting through angst, bureaucracy’ and therefore not dealing with uncertainty anymore. Now there’s also mandatory height limit and ‘that’s something that council has been crying out about for years’. Said that all councils around Victoria have been asking for mandatory height controls (OUR COMMENT – EXCEPT GLEN EIRA!!!!!). Thought that residents would also ‘appreciate having that certainty as well’.Spoke about the commercial zones claiming that Glen Eira has graduated zones but this introduces just one zone for everything and ‘high density as of right’ which means that ‘you could be in Mackie Road and faced with high density’ …..’of 5 or 7 storieys in one of these local centres’. Foreshadowed an amendment because ‘this represents a discussion paper’….’missing community input directly’. Said that in his experience ‘people want to know’ whether something is going or not ‘and they want some input at an early stage’. Froesahdowed that this be put on council’s website and invite submissions from residents and alerting them to the government website and that submissions close on 21st September. (OUR COMMENT: TOO LITTLE TOO LATE ESPECIALLY WHEN OTHER COUNCILS HAVE BEEN HOLDING RESIDENTS’ MEETINGS AND INFORMATION SESSIONS FOR WEEKS NOW!)‘ No reason we can’t facilitate the community giving their views as well’.

HYAMS: ‘lot about this which is good’…’lot about this which does raise concerns’. VCAT will now have to apply zones and not only consider them ‘it will give us a lot more certainty’. Said that there’s uncertainty whether the government will apply the commericial zones immediately. Said he attended a mayoral and ceo forum last week and the Minister was present to take questions which he dealt with. Hyams asked Minister about high density being allowed in commercial zones. Said that the MInister responded by saying that it would still need ‘to go through the permit process’ but that Hyams then made the point that where there’s higher density allowed that would be what vcat would apply. Stated that the Minister ‘suggested that we have a chat about it afterwards’ and that they’re trying to tee up a meeting. So none of this should be seen ‘as a done deal’. Thought that this was the ‘basis of a good submission’.

TANG: moved amendment that this be published on council’s website and promoting a link to the department’s website with contact details.

Hyams then asked Esakoff if this amendment was ‘acceptable. She then asked a question of Akehurst

ESAKOFF: ‘given the time structures here’ whether the amendment is feasible?

AKEHURST: Said that time is an ‘issue’ because that only leaves 17 days. Said that he had ‘waded through the new zones’ himself and that he was pretty familiar with the proposals ‘it does take a little getting over the top of what is in the zones’. If this was going out to the general public then he wasn’t sure ‘whether there is going to be adequate time to get across the substance’. Repeated that a ‘zone is really a tool’ and isn’t important until it’s applied and ‘we’re not at that stage yet, we’re not at stage 2’. So if there’s to be public involvement ‘it wouldn’t be at stage 1’. Public should only be involved ‘when you apply the zones’.

Tang then asked about a point of order whether you can put questions before seconding an amendment. Hyams responded that this isn’t covered by the local law. Penhallurick then offered to second the amendment. Esakoff then removed her seconding of the amendment and said that she would take this to ‘a wider discussion of all councillors’. Penhalluriack then seconded.

TANG: said that we’ve ‘got 2 weeks’ and that with the new website it should be pretty simple to put up the links and the Akehurst paper. Said that he didn’t expect ‘all residents to be across the technicalities of the zones’ but residents could use the paper itself in order to understand the zones. Said the jargon has been translated for councillors anyway so residents should also be able to understand it. Foresahdowed another question about the ability of the Minister to implement some of the zones without ‘recourse to council’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘not difficult to put on the website’…’knowledge is power’ and even if there are only 2 people who are interested ‘why should we withhold’ this?

TANG: asked Akehurst if he knew whether it was within the power of the Minister to implement the zones without further recourse to council and further consultation?

AKEHURST: said that ‘the issue of implementation has great lack of detail’. Said that he’d spoken with senior people and no-one knew how this would be done and thought the minister was waiting for results from submissions. Thought that government ‘is keen to advance commercial zones’ and that ‘they may come in without consultation’. On the residential zones he thought that ‘councils would be given some time’ and that ‘Glen Eira has got a head start’ on implementing these because of its housing diversity/minimal change zones.

LIPSHUTZ: said that after listening to Akehurst he realised that these zones are something ‘that is still very much up in the air’ and that since it’s taken officers a fair bit of time to understand them, he wasn’t ‘sure how in a very short period of time we’re going to have the public understand’. Worried that all this would ‘scare’ the public and be ‘misinterpreted’. The community should be involved only at the second phase.

ESAKOFF: also had ‘concerns’ and thought that only a very small percentage of the community ‘would look at our website on a regular basis’….’it could look a little bit mischievous on our part’ if we consulted with the community on something that isn’t consultable (ie if the minister brings in the commercial zones without consulting councils). Doubted ‘very much’ if the time to consult ‘is now’.

Hyams asked Akehurst if the submissions to government are only from councils or also from the public.

AKEHURST: ‘That’s a good question. They’re on the website….but I’m not sure’ whether people are aware. Hyams again asked if the public are invited to make submissions. Akehurst didn’t know. A member of the gallery informed them ‘it does’!

HYAMS: said that the amendment should be supported because if the government is taking submissions then ‘we should be facilitating that’….’I certainly don’t think there’s any harm to that’. Also said that if the government was going to bring in the zones ‘straight away’ then ‘this is the only opportunity’ to have a say. Whilst not everyone looks at the website those who do are ‘more likely to make a submission’.

ESAKOFF: asked the question that if the vote is in favour that this be ‘inserted on our electronic consultation letter – if that’s the right name for it'(!!!!!!!)

HYAMS: asked that this be an amendment. Tang seconded and was carried unanimously.

TANG: moved another amendment that this be advertised in both Leader newspapers. Pilling seconded.

PENHALLURIACK: said that the next Leader comes out on the 11th and that would be ‘insufficenct time’ and that council would be wasting its money.

ESAKOFF: asked when the next edition was coming out and the deadline for advertising.

BURKE: Thursday

HYAMS: asked Burke if the community column in the Leader had already been finalised?

Amendment was put and carried. The motion with the 3 amendments was then put and carried unanimously

COMMENT: It’s quite staggering that after years and years as councillors and the lauding of the ‘consultation/engagement policy’ that the difference between information provision and consultation seems to be lost on most of these individuals. Other councils obviously saw no problem with ALERTING their residents to what is happening. This is the first stage of any consultation – accurate, timely, and comprehensive information provision. Glen Eira showed no interest in doing any of this. Now at the 11th hour we suddenly have several pangs of conscience. Even this though is tinged with a paternalistic and patronising hue – ie. we poor residents will be incapable of understanding such a complex matter. It will only ‘frighten’ us! For this residents should read – we don’t want community involvement. Lipshutz and Esakoff in particular should be ashamed of themselves in our view! As for the rest of the councillors, why didn’t they insist that this occur way back in July?

September 4, 2012

Welcome To Leggo Land!

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

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

September 4, 2012

Selling For A Song!

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

Council is about to sell just under 100 square metres of its land to the MRC for the paltry figure of $140,000. Stuck in the middle of the current car park it is admittedly useless to Council but extremely important to the MRC. This is where the 4 storey buildings are to go.

This leads us on to several important questions:

Has council ever received ‘rent’ from the MRC for this land?
Why wasn’t this discovered when the C60 was being planned?
This is the second time that odd little pieces of land are changing hands. What does this say about the planning department’s fingers on the pulse and their vigilance?
Why is Council prepared to sell this 100 sq metres for a song? Most real estate experts value the price of land in this area as between $2,000 – $2,500 per square metre if not more. That would make it at least double what council is prepared to sell for. Why and how has this bargain basement figure been determined?

September 3, 2012

Fact & Fiction

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off

Many councils are now publishing their draft submissions to the Minister’s planning changes. It’s therefore fascinating to compare the rose-coloured spin presented by Akehurst and his bosses with what other councils see as major problems. Below is the City of Yarra’s response from the upcoming September 4th agenda papers. We urge readers to compare and contrast this vision with the PollyAnna scenarios presented by Glen Eira. Of most concern is the removal of third party objection rights. It’s also worthy of repeating that countless other councils have met with resident groups (as has Yarra) and organised ‘information evenings’ in order to fully inform residents of the potential ramifications of these draft proposals. Again, this has not happened in Glen Eira! Here are some extracts from the Yarra Council response –

” A preliminary assessment of the new zones indicates a major reduction in the capacity for Council to control some aspects of new development and land use, as the proposals generally increase the land uses in the ‘no permit required’ category. Two of the proposed residential zones propose ‘no permit required’ for smaller shops, cafés and offices within 100 metres of a commercial zone or mixed use zone and for a medical centre up to 250sqm anywhere in the zone.

The implementation of the proposed new residential zones presents Council with some complex choices about where and how to apply them. These zones include scope for mandatory height limits and variable restrictions on a range of building form and subdivision matters. The proposals do not indicate, however, the strategic justification required to support Council proposals.

In all three proposed Residential Zones no permit is required for medical centres (up to a floor area of 250sqm). This is far less restrictive than currently, where a planning permit is needed in a Residential 1 Zone. This will remove the capacity to control operating hours and other aspects of operation which might impact on local amenity.

The changes to this zone are significant and include a new objective ‘to provide for housing at higher densities’. The range of no permit required land uses has increased and the scope to specify the limits to floor-space has been removed from the Schedule to the zone.

The economic and amenity implications from these proposals include potentially undermining the viability of strip shopping centres, local traffic impacts in residential streets and conflicts between household amenity and nuisance and pollution from neighbouring cafes and shops. If no permit is required, there is no scope to apply conditions on hours of operation, managing odours and other local impacts.

There are likely to be both intended and unintended impacts from these changes. Some of the implications are difficult to predict. It seems likely that if the new zones come into effect the City of Yarra could potentially change in the following ways:

(a) there will be more small supermarkets in a wide range of fringe commercial / industrial locations;

(b) there will be more shops, cafes and small offices in residential areas on the fringes of commercial areas;

(d) a range of nursing homes, hostels, aged care facilities and other types of accommodation could begin to occur in semi-industrial locations.

While the implications and impacts are not certain it is clear that Council will, as Planning Authority, have much less capacity to control and respond to how the city develops and changes. The new zones also mean that particularly in mixed use neighbourhoods which in many ways characterise Yarra residents, business owners and others with an interest in the future of their city will have much less say or influence over the outcomes.

September 2, 2012

Crystal Ball Gazing!

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

It is quite clear that this administration and its lackey councillors have absolutely no intention of either listening to residents or changing the direction of its planning policy. Item after item for Tuesday night’s council meeting confirms this. It will be more of the same – no consultation, no up-to-date local analysis, and certainly no let up in over development. We come to this conclusion based on the following:

Akehurst’s ‘review’ of the proposed VicSmart legislative changes is overwhelmingly supportive and even self-congratulatory in that the current Housing Diversity versus Minimal Change Areas as practised in Glen Eira will easily be reconfigured into VicSmart. In other words – no change is necessary in Glen Eira – “It is assumed that there will be an expectation on behalf of the State Government that the new zones will be applied in as neutral way as possible having regard to our existing zones and policies. The strongest likelihood is that this transition from our one existing residential zone (Residential 1 Zone) and policies (Minimal Change/Housing Diversity) to three new residential zones which incorporate our policy intents will be able to occur via a Ministerial (fast track) amendment. If this can be achieved it will occur relatively smoothly and ultimately with an improved outcome”. Of course, what this ‘improved outcome’ will be is not clarified, much less justified and proven. The message however is inescapable – much, much more of the same.

Whereas other councils (Manningham, Boroodara, Kingston to name just a few) can hold information sessions and urge their residents to become involved and put in submissions, all Glen Eira can do is present a self serving report that barely questions the removal of third party rights and other major drawbacks. What we get are nonsense paragraphs such as – “Third party rights (the involvement of neighbours) are not changing. It must be acknowledged however that the flip side of greater land use opportunities for land owner applicants is less involvement by others.”

Next, there’s the C87 Amendment where residents were excluded from having any say prior to the drafting of the Amendment and hence their voices and protests were ruled out of order. Even when the Panel report recommends that Heritage reviews be undertaken PRIOR to removing several properties from Minimal Change Areas and placing them in Housing Diversity, the response is:

This recommendation is not supported. Whilst it is acknowledged that a heritage control in a Housing Diversity Area may be perceived as a mixed (stop and go) town planning message, a heritage control would take precedence over potential development opportunities. It is considered that the two planning controls (i.e. heritage and housing diversity) can co-exist. For these reasons, it is considered appropriate for this area along Balaclava Road to change to a Housing Diversity Area(as exhibited). This policy should not impact on the potential for this area to have heritage protection in the future.”

We should also note that the Panel’s urging for Heritage reviews and other Amendments are barely mentioned. No time lines are provided, no sense of urgency detected. In the end, residents shouldn’t hold their breaths. What they can be certain about is that unless most of these councillors are voted out, then this municipality will continue to bend over backwards to support (over) development anywhere. This is the legacy of Newton and his toadies.

August 31, 2012

News Flash: GESAC – The Mess Continues!

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

Hidden away in the agenda for next Council Meeting we find this small paragraph:

“Recently as advised to Councillors, the contractor applied for adjudication pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2001 (Vic) for a sum of $4.2M. Progress with these claims will be disclosed as it occurs”.

Reading between the lines this can only mean one thing – Hansen and Yuncken aren’t taking the withholding of over $4 million in ‘liquidated damages’ lying down. Chances are that not only will they sue for this money but also ask for compensation, interest and god knows what else. The final sum could be millions above the $4M. Then we have to add on legal fees (and these have surely already been accumulating).

Other news on GESAC is that there are still ‘problems’ that need fixing! We also note that in this financial report no mention is made of the GESAC consulting suites and the loss of income. Are we to assume that after months of months of bringing in no income these suites have finally been let, or is it simply that council forgot to mention this item in its report?

PS – In addition to the matters referred to above there are also some other very, very strange goings on according to the Records of Assembly.

One item from the 7^th August is utterly bewildering and we can only speculate as to its import and reason(s) for being brought up. It reads – “Agenda Item 9.3 – VCAT Watch July 2012 decisions. Amended recommendations to include incorporation into the Code of Conduct”. Checking back to these minutes the VCAT decisions were highly contentious in that one rejected council’s proposal for a 4 storey dwelling and made the order for this to be a 5 storey development. The argument was that this was more in keeping with the obvious intent of council’s planning scheme and policy. So we are left scratching our heads as to why a VCAT decision should suddenly be seen as appropriate, or even relevant for a ‘Code of Conduct’. More importantly is this paving the way for more restrictions to be placed on councillors?
From the same Record of Assembly there is: “Cr Forge – Caulfield Racecourse. Said she was of the view that the number of fences appears to have increased with the park development in the racecourse centre” AND there is this one as well: “Cr Penhalluriack – programming a meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Advisory Committee and informed the groups that he had invited one local MP and would invite the MRC. Following discussion it was agreed to defer a meeting of the Advisory Committee until after the next meeting of the Racecourse Trustees.” Wonderful! When was the last time this Advisory Committee met? It’s a relief to know that councillors are so busy doing council work that they can’t even get together in over a year and have to wait on the outcomes of a secret, behind closed doors Trustee meeting before they can even discuss a single thing! These last two items should really fill residents with confidence as to how the entire Racecourse issue is being handled, supervised, and reported upon. In other words – disgracefully!

August 31, 2012

Trust Me – I’m A Councillor!

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

The Panel Report on the C87 Amendment is now out (uploaded here). No surprises as to what the recommendations are. But that’s not the end of the story. The story itself would appear to be one of back room manipulation on the part of administrators and councillors. The only plausible excuse that councillors may have is that they are just plain ignorant or stupid, but ultimately compliant with the questionable agendas implemented by this administration. Here is what we know:

Every important draft amendment has been subject to a Council Resolution to forward it on to the Minister for permission to exhibit. Following permission for exhibition, there is the compulsory ‘consultation’ phase, a potential Panel hearing if objections are raised and then the final Council Resolution as to accepting, adapting, or rejecting the Panel report.
With c87 no such formal resolution to seek permission to exhibit from the Minister has ever been passed. The Minister’s approval was however gained in June 2011- we presume under officer delegated powers with no clear, open council resolution supporting it. In other words, residents did not get to see the proposed Amendment until it had already gone off to the Minister – far too late to change anything!
Following the consultation period and the number of objections, both Lipshutz and Hyams encouraged residents who wished to add properties to the list to put in submissions in the hope that the Panel would listen to their objections. Utter nonsense as we stated in previous posts (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/c87-crocodile-tears/ AND https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/move-over-sir-humphrey/). No panel was ever going to exceed its terms of reference, and those terms were set solely by the officers. Hence, we need to ask how honest were both Lipshutz and Hyams in their encouragement of residents to waste their time in writing submissions that would without a shadow of a doubt be ignored? Or perhaps we should ask whether Lipshutz and Hyams were just plain stupid and didn’t know any better? Or were they simply indulging in some political face-saving in order to take the heat off themselves and their colleagues for once again dropping the ball and not exercising their duty to set policy that involved the community at the outset? Or finally, as the examples keep piling up, supporting the administration to the hilt at the expense of residents?
The proposed amendment NEVER gave councillors and residents the right to have any input at the most crucial stage – that is, which properties might be added, removed, etc. The officers’ report in fact stated clearly that once an amendment was exhibited it could not be changed and if properties were to be included then this would involve ANOTHER amendment! Yet Lipshutz and Hyams persisted in telling residents that they should put in their submissions to the very Panel that would reject them. If they did not know that this was a useless exercise, then they should have known. If they did know, and continued to perpetrate this myth, then they should be hauled before a code of conduct panel for deliberately misleading the public!
The upshot is that the community has been duped; councillors have either been duped, or been fully complicit in perpetrating this deceit. It once again illustrates exactly what goes on in this council and how the normal and expected processes are abused, distorted, and manipulated to produce predetermined outcomes that do not in any shape or form benefit the vast majority of residents. In Glen Eira, residents are personae non gratis. Their views do not count, their objections do not count, and their aspirations do not count. All residents are good for is to continue forking out higher and higher rates to cover up poorly managed projects (ie GESAC) that do nothing except serve the gigantic egos and current power structures.

Come election time we urge all residents to take these issues into account when they cast their votes.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates