GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 3, 2012

Fact & Fiction

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off on Fact & Fiction 

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;

(c) there will be more retail activity outside the existing centres; and

(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 7th 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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!
  3. 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?
  4. 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!
  5. 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.

 

August 30, 2012

More Lawyers!

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

Rebel Penhalluriack’s hostel charge

SUNDAY trading rebel and Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack has been charged by his own council for allegedly running an illegal backpacker hostel.

Cr Penhalluriack could be fined up to $42,000 if convicted.

He yesterday claimed the court action was part of a vendetta by Glen Eira to get him.

The council is also taking a separate action against Cr Penhalluriack in VCAT over alleged misconduct.

It has accused him of bullying the council’s chief executive and community services director, failing to declare a conflict of interest, misusing his position and failing to attend anti-bullying training.

The VCAT hearing was adjourned last week after senior VCAT member Robert Davis disqualified himself from hearing the case because of his association with one of the witnesses.

Cr Penhalluriack was initially fined $1221 by the council over the alleged illegal backpacker hostel. The fine was recently withdrawn and a summons to attend court was issued because the fine wasn’t paid in the specified period.

Glen Eira Mayor Jamie Hyams yesterday said the council had given Cr Penhalluriack every opportunity to pay the fine.

“He will be treated exactly the same way as any other person … in the same situation,” Cr Hyams said.

“We take these matters very seriously and we have successfully prosecuted others for the same infringement.

“These places are potentially death traps.”

Cr Penhalluriack yesterday denied all of the allegations being made against him in VCAT and also denied he had been running an illegal backpacker hostel.

He recently demolished the building, which was between his hardware store and garden centre in Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield.

He is due to face Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court on the hostel charge on October 10.

Protests by Cr Penhalluriack against a ban on Sunday trading – which saw him jailed for 19 days in 1984 – helped influence changes to weekend trading in 1996.

 

August 29, 2012

News Flash: The Alma Club

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

A huge crowd witnessed the sale of The Alma Club for $7.94 million this afternoon. The buyer will have the opportunity to deduct $330,000 if he wishes to retain the telecommunications pole which is presently sitting on the property. The terms of sale were the handing over of $1 million upon purchase and the rest in June 2013.

Council has once again let the community down badly. Not only has it forsaken an absolute real estate bargain when the asking price was basically $3 million, but they have again shown what a sham the continual cry of lack of open space means to these decision makers – absolutely nothing! Residents need to be asking some very serious questions –

  • why were no real discussions entered into?
  • who made the decision to say ‘no’?
  • why wasn’t this conducted in an open council meeting?
  • is council that cash strapped because of its poor financial management? If so, then how much credence should residents place in the financial statements and budgets?
  • when will these councillors really start taking charge of this municipality and perform their mandated duties instead of leaving practically everything to unelected ‘fat cats’?
 

August 24, 2012

Are We Living In The Dark Ages?

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

We thought it time to have a close look at how Glen Eira compares with its neighbours on up-to-date planning and forward thinking. True to form, most of the central planning policies in Glen Eira date back to the mid or late nineties. Even the promise to include all central policies on council’s website has never materialised. Basically the agenda is ‘business as usual’, with no real updated local analyses, no up-to-date long term articulated vision and certainly no ‘improvements’.

Below we feature the Incorporated/Reference Documents that are listed in the various council planning schemes. We’ve focused on open space, urban design/land use, and heritage. We ask that readers pay particular attention to:

  • The various dates, and
  • The Glen Eira City Council Traffic Report-Child Care Centres Study March 2009. This is supposedly the document upon which the Amendment removing the child care centres from the ‘non-residential uses in residential areas’ was largely founded upon. Yet, it was never mentioned in the officer’s report and has certainly never been placed into the public domain! Another ‘mystery report’ that remains secret and unaccountable.

GLEN EIRA

Glen Eira Long Term Open Space Strategy, City of Glen Eira, 1998

Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan, 1996

Glen Eira Retail / Commercial Strategy, Essential Economics, 1998

Urban Village Structure Plan, Glen Eira City Council, June 1999

Economic Overview, Henshall Hansen & Associates, 1997

City of Glen Eira Business Development Strategy, 1998

Glen Eira 2020, 1996

Housing and Residential Development Strategy, Glen Eira City Council, 2002

Urban Character Study, Anne Cunningham & Anne Keddie, 1996

Glen Eira City Council Traffic Report-Child Care Centres Study March 2009.

KINGSTON

Retail and Commercial Development Strategy 2006

Highett Structure Plan, May 2006

“City of Kingston Heritage Study Stage One Report”, Living Histories, 2000

“City of Kingston Heritage Study Stage Two”, Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd, 2004

Highett Structure Plan, May 2006 

STONNINGTON

Chapel Vision Structure Plan 2007- 2031, City of Stonnington, December 2007.

City of Stonnington, Public Realm Strategy, October 2010

Commercial Strategy: Stonnington City Council, 1999

Forrest Hill Structure Plan; Stonnington City Council, 2005

Heritage Guidelines; Stonnington City Council, 2002

Heritage Overlay Citations; Stonnington City Council (various dates)

Late night liquor licence trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: measuring the saturation levels Research Paper, April 2010

Prahran Conservation Study: Conservation Controls; Nigel Lewis, 1983

Prahran Data Base: Prahran Conservation Study Listing; Nigel Lewis, 1992

Prahran Character and Conservation Study; Prahran City Council, 1992

Review of Policies and Controls for the Yarra River Corridor – Punt Road to Burke Road; Consultant Report, June 2005

Stonnington Open Space Strategy; Thompson Berrill Landscape Design Pty Ltd, 2000

Stonnington Thematic Environmental History, 2006

Stonnington Thematic Environmental History: Update 1 Addendum, March 2009

City of Stonnington Heritage Overlay Gap Study, Heritage Overlay Precincts Final Report, March 2009

Urban Design Strategy; Stonnington City Council, 1998

Waverley Road Urban Design Framework Plan, 2008

PORT PHILLIP

Sustainable Design Policy (2006)

Port Phillip Housing Strategy (2007)

Port Phillip Activity Centres Implementation Plan (2007)

Port Phillip Activity Centres Strategy (2006)

Port Phillip Industry and Business Strategy (2003)

Open Space Strategy (2006, Revised 2009)

Open Space Strategy Implementation Plan Framework (2009)

Foreshore Management Plan (2004)

Port Phillip Housing Strategy (2007)

Port Phillip Design Manual (2000)

South Melbourne Central Structure Plan (2007)

South Melbourne Central Urban Design Framework (2007)

Ormond Road Urban Design Guidelines (2007)

Beacon Cove Neighbourhood Character Guidelines 2010 (SJB Urban, 2010)

Carlisle Street Activity Centre Structure Plan (2009)

Carlisle Street Urban Design Framework (2009)

 

August 21, 2012

VCAT: Burke, The ‘Amnesiac’?

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

MR CHAMPION:  I withdraw that.  (To witness) What happened was this.  Councillor Lipshutz asked Councillor Penhalluriack to leave the meeting?—I don’t recall that, Mr Champion, and I just repeat that I am not aware that anybody actually has the authority to tell any councillor to actually leave a meeting.

I used the word tell the first time, I use asked this time, if something turns on it.  Councillor Penhalluriack’s evidence will be, sir, that Councillor Lipshutz asked him to leave the meeting.  Do you agree or disagree with that or can’t remember?—I don’t recall that.

Councillor Esakoff asked him to leave the meeting?—I don’t recall that either, sir.

And they did so in raised voices?—I don’t recall that either.

SENIOR MEMBER:  Do you think you would have recalled it if they had asked Penhalluriack to leave in raised voices?—Yes, I do, sir.

MR CHAMPION:  You say it didn’t happen?—I don’t recall that happening, I don’t recall raised voices, no.

Do you recall them asking him to leave?—No.

The reason that they asked him to leave was that they said that he had a conflict of interest as to Item 12.10.  That was what happened, sir, that’s what I’m suggesting to you; yes or no?—I don’t recall that happening, sir.

And that he protested that he didn’t wish to leave the meeting, that’s what happened?—I don’t recall that happening either.

And he left under protest?—I certainly don’t recall any protest.

SENIOR MEMBER:  Just let me explain to you.  I understand your answer “I don’t recall,” but let’s assume for a moment that, as Mr Champion said, Councillor Penhalluriack gets up and swears that he was told, and the Tribunal is going to be left with a position where Councillor Penhalluriack says something was certain, and you’re using the word don’t recall.  When I asked you last time about the raised voices you said if that happened I probably would have recalled it.  Now when you say you’re not recalling this are you saying you just don’t remember what happened or are you saying, look, if it had have happened I probably would have recalled it?  Because it’s pretty important from our point of view.  Do you understand the difference?—Yeah, I do, sir.  Look, I don’t recall.  I don’t know whether you’ve ever had the experience of being in a pre meeting of councillors but – – –

I haven’t had the experience of even being in an ordinary meeting of council?—From time to time, sir, they can get interesting to say the least.  Governments at the local level can get a bit exciting at times.  But in this particular instance I don’t recall people asking another councillor to leave, I don’t recall raised voices.  Usually when things get a bit hot under the collar and things start to spiral out of control I usually do remember those instances.

Would you call this spiralling out of control?—No.

Sorry, if there had have been Councillor Lipshutz and/or Councillor Esakoff asking Councillor Penhalluriack to leave in raised would you say that’s spiralling out of control?—I’d put that in that category, sir, yes.

MR CHAMPION:  The effect, sir, was to the extent that Item 12.10, the bullying training motion at that point was discussed at the pre meeting, Councillor Penhalluriack did not participate in that discussion?—Well, the minute actually records him leaving the room at 7.25.

The discussion such as it was, was after he left?—As I recall it there was some chatter as Councillor Penhalluriack was circulating his letter.  He then leaves at 7.25 and then as you can see from the record shortly after that all officers with the exception of the director of community services also left.

SENIOR MEMBER:  When you say officers you don’t include councillors?—No, sir, no.

MR CHAMPION:  The reason he left was so that Item 12.10 could  be discussed in his absence?—Well, I – – –

MR ATTIWILL:  I object to the question.  The reason he left?  Did he give a reason?  I mean, it’s not up to him.

MR CHAMPION:  He can’t read Councillor Penhalluriack’s mind.

SENIOR MEMBER:  He may have stated a reason, I don’t know.  You can certainly ask that.

MR CHAMPION:  What Councillor Penhalluriack’s evidence will be, sir, is that he left under protest because he was asked to leave, and you don’t remember that?—That’s correct.

Do you recall whether he did state a reason as to why he was leaving?—No, I don’t recall any reason.

SENIOR MEMBER:  Is that a convenient time?

MR CHAMPION:  Yes, if the Tribunal pleases.

<(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)

 

 

August 21, 2012

The Leader: Alma Club & Bullying

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

Aborted Hearing Leaves Many Questions Unanswered

Andrea Kellett

Glen Eira Councillor  Frank Penhalluriack is a devastated man.

After a lengthy wait and months of preparation, misconduct allegations brought against him by Glen Eira council, which he insisted were to be heard at the public tribunal, were last week aborted after three days of the expected seven days.

Evidence from only tow of the council’s eight witnesses was heard. The council’s key witness, CEO Andrew Newton, had not been called, nor had Cr Penhalluriack.

Mr Robert Davis had, he said, known Cr Michael Lipshutz for many years. In the three days, the tributnal heard argument from Charles Gunst, QC, for Cr Penhalluriack, that Glen Eira Council staff treated his client with “disdain”.

“They ignore his questions, roll their eyes when he speaks at meetings and are resistant in providing him with information,” he said. He said his client was the victim of a vendetta “manufactured” by CEO Andrew Newton and Mr Newton used false allegations of bullying to silence his critics.

Richard Attiwill, for Glen Eira Council, denied those allegations. He urged the tribunal to find that Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour constituted “gross misconduct”. He said Cr Penhalluriack had made “very serious” allegations against senior officers in writing and that it was “not a passing rudeness or a momentary lapse”.

The tribunal heard there was tension between Cr Penhalluriack and staff at the council and that Cr Penhalluriack was considered a “bit of a nuisance”.

Council community services director Peter Jones said under corss examination that Cr Penhalluriack had denigrated him personally and that had made him angry.

After three days at the back of the court-room taking notes, Cr Penhalluriack left without, he said, the resolution he had hoped for. “I was hoping to get finality by the (council) election,” he said. “When a leopard dies it leaves its skin, but when a man dies he leaves his reputation.”

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

Sporting chance urged

The demise of the Alma Sports Club, a non-profit community club, open to all, will see the loss of the only sporting facility or potential park area left in the far northwest precinct of Glen Eira. It must be retained as open space.

This precinct is experiencing a significant increase in population due to rezoning. This is the only opportunity for Glen Eira Council to secure the site for the community.

Retention of the site as council or Crown land is essential for the liveability of this part of Glen Eira. It is reputed to have the lowest ration of open space and recreational area of any of Melbourne’s municipalities.

The council claims it has no money to buy the site and does not rescue “private” clubs. But council squandered our city’s reserves, squandered our city’s ability to borrow more money, all on GESAC.

Yet the residents of this precinct are lumped with paying the greater proportion of the GESAC debt because they pay higher rates!

Dr David Dolan

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

I live around the corner from the Alma Sports Club and it would be a great pity to see it replaced by apartments.

I know an energetic guy tried to get a cabaret club started there recently but was denied a permit by the council.

A par with a few tennis courts and a café would be ideal. The site needs someone who can reach out to young families in the area, offer lessons and childcare. But if that is all too hard, give us a park.

 

August 20, 2012

More Selective Editing

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

The minutes of last council meeting record the following in regard to a public question on traffic management –

“Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is: Did you in fact inform the traffic department of the agreement you had reached with the Rowan Street Elsternwick residents group to hold off implementation? If so when did you inform the traffic department? How many survey returns did Council receive in order to proceed with this work? What was the total cost of running the Council survey & implementing the 6 parking restrictions signs in this small section of Rowan Street?”

Cr Lipshutz read Council’s response. He said:

“I met with two residents and requested the Transport Planning department on 5 June 2012 to hold off while the residents returned their surveys. At this time, the Transport Planning Department advised that the installation would be placed on hold for one month. The signs were not installed until 25 July 2012.

Eight questionnaires were received from residents during the consultation held in April 2012.

The parking restriction consultation was undertaken as part of the day-to-day operation of the Transport Planning Department. I am advised that the cost of six parking restriction signs manufactured and installed by Council’s depot was less than $200.”

All well and good EXCEPT that the first part of the question has been edited out. Whilst not strictly a ‘question’, the background provided is essential in order to understand the situation and the actions taken by council.

This is not the first time that residents’ questions are conveniently edited (censured?). The old excuse of exceeding 150 words is also invalid since many questions have been published that far exceed this count.

Residents rightly expect that when public questions are submitted that the full text of that question will be entered into the minutes. Without a firm, written and public policy on how public questions will be recorded, the pattern of rewriting history remains unchallenged.

Here is the full question:

“Below are questions personally directed to Councillor Lipshutz

Following notification by Council’s traffic department to Rowan Street Elsternwick residents in April/May 2012, of Council’s intention to erect 2HR parking restrictions in Rowan Street (section between Shoobra St & Orrong Rd, a group of residents met with Councillor Lipshutz on Monday 4 June 2012 to voice their concerns regarding Council’s decision to proceed with the parking restrictions, based on a very small number of responses received to its Survey. Of the total 15 properties abutting Rowan Street, 8 responses were received, which according to Council traffic department 5 supported the restrictions & 3 did not.

At the 4 June 2012 meeting, Councillor Lipshutz agreed to request Council traffic department to hold off implementation until all 15 properties had been surveyed by the residents group. The residents group kept Councillor Lipshutz informed of progress via email on following dates 7/6/12, 8/6/12, 13/6/12, 20/6/12, 13/7/12).  The last email to Councillor Lipshutz from the residents group dated 13/7/12 stated that as 2 properties were vacant (one being renovated & the other being rebuilt), efforts were being directed at locating the 2 owners and the email emphasised that it was expected as per our agreement, that in the meantime, the restrictions would not go ahead. The email also stated that of the responses received to the residents group survey, the majority were not in favour of the 2HR parking restrictions proposed by Council.

However, to the absolute amazement of the Rowan Street Elsternwick concerned residents group, despite the agreement reached with you Councillor Lipshutz, the Council traffic department disregarded this agreement you had with us & proceeded to implement the 2HR parking restrictions in late July 2012.

Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is:

Did you in fact inform the traffic department of the agreement you had reached with the Rowan Street Elsternwick residents group to hold off implementation? If so when did you inform the traffic department?

How many survey returns did Council receive in order to proceed with this work?

What was the total cost of running the Council survey & implementing the 6 parking restrictions signs in this small section of Rowan Street?”

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »