GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

August 14, 2012

More Open Space?

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

The Leader story below is the result we presume from another public question that was asked at last council meeting and as per norm, was woefully responded to. Also included is an online comment from a resident.

Bentleigh open space concern

13 Aug 12 @ 02:16pm by Jessica Bennett

The Clover Estate at East Bentleigh

A BENTLEIGH EAST man is concerned that despite Glen Eira having the lowest amount of open space in Victoria, it is taking cash contributions instead of building new parks.

Newton Gatoff said a subdivision on the corner of Ellen and Malane streets, to be the Clover Estate, included 50 blocks that in 2010 sold to a developer for $52 million.

Mr Gatoff, who intends to run for Glen Eira Council in the November elections, said when a new subdivision was over a certain size, land was required to be set aside for its residents for open space.

But under the Subdivision Act, a council can accept payment in the form of a public open space levy from the developer instead, as was the case with Clover Estate.

“Glen Eira Council is not using the open space money for what it was intended,” Mr Gatoff said.

“Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space for a council in Victoria.

“Where did the money go and where is our park?

“They are legitimate questions that never received an answer.”

Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke said the public open space contribution required by the original permit was 4.5 per cent of the land value ($450,000) paid to the council in May.

He said money collected via an open pace contribution must be spent on land acquisition for open space purposes or improvements to existing open space and council had significantly spent on both, including re-seeding sporting ovals and parks and installing water efficient drip irrigation systems.

Bert Haskins writes: Posted on 14 Aug 12 at 08:29am

This Council loudly proclaims it actively looks for opportunities to increase Glen Eira’s public open space yet their record is abysmal. As developers continue to ravage Glen Eira which results in even less open space per capita, this Council focusses on building supersized pavillions and carparks that are underutilised and consume more open space, planting warm season grasses and concrete plinthing. At the same time Council either dismisses out of hand the opportunity to expand open space by purchasing the heavily discounted Alma Club or let’s the windfall land of the Booran Road Reservoir remain derelict for over 10 years .

August 13, 2012

The Witch Hunt: Day #1

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

The legal eagles were out in force for the start of the Glen Eira vs Penhalluriack VCAT case. Council had 3 representatives and so did Penhalluriack. Also present were at least 4 other council officers plus the media. The case is set down for 7 days. How much will this cost we ask?

The opening hours were spent on legal arguments. What was astonishing was the ‘surprises’ that Council seemed to spring on the defendant at the 11th hour – the upgrading of several charges to ‘gross misconduct’ and the sudden appearance of audio tapes of council meetings. They attempted to make much of the fact that they had only received the defendant’s response to some of the charges on Friday and hence were not fully prepared to respond. Penhalluriack’s lawyers responded that Council lawyers were a week late in submitting their case and hence they had little notice of the changes and had not even had the opportunity to listen to the tapes. More ‘dirty tricks’ we ask?

Council’s lawyers sought permission to amend the charges which was opposed by Penhalluriack’s counsel. The arguments focused on the legal question of whether council’s request to amend the 4^th allegation (misuse of position by Penhalluriack) should be allowed. It seems that the alleged ‘gross misconduct’ goes back years to the laneway dispute. Council however, after months and months of preparation and countless lawyers still couldn’t figure out that the Councillor Code of Conduct under which they allege misconduct is the November 2009 Code. The misconduct however happened in July and August of that year and hence is subject to the 2006 Councillor Code of Conduct and not the 2009 version which effectively rescinded the 2006 version. Looks like someone didn’t do their homework properly on this one and couldn’t even figure out that there are two separate and distinct codes – although Council’s lawyers did try to argue that the intent of the codes are identical. The members and both sides agreed to leave a decision on this until later given that the members hadn’t even had time to read the submissions from both sides and that important points of law were at stake and they didn’t want to make a ‘mistake’.

After all the hullabaloo of the O’Neill report and allegations of ‘bullying’, this has now disappeared into the dustbin of history. This alone supposedly cost just over $10,000! Instead, Penhalluriack is charged with ‘humiliating’ the CEO by stating in a private letter to Esakoff that he believes there was ‘behind our backs wheeling and dealing’ between Newton and the MRC and that he wrote that Peter Jones sat like a ‘dumb mute’ in a meeting and refused to respond to his questions. This allegedly breaches the Code of Conduct.

The second charge related to a ‘conflict of interest’ over the mulch facility and that Penhalluriack did not declare such an interest when he should have and it was all about personal financial gain. Again, this is in breach of the Local Government Act and the code of conduct.

This took just on 3 hours. After the luncheon break, Council outlined its case alleging that Penhalluriack had made statements to Mr Taylor (Planning compliance officer) that Penhalluriack had told him that his councillor ‘mates’ would back him. Council also wished to present audio tapes of meetings to counter Penhalluriack’s claims that he had been excluded from meetings and/or discussions.

Penhalluriack’s counsel was not backward in coming forward. He called the entire case ‘vindictive’, ‘trivial’, and that Newton has a history of attacking councillors who are doing their duty honestly in the best interests of the community. The most telling argument was that the Council witness (Mr Taylor) in his first email back to his superiors, did not make any mention whatsoever of the alleged statements by Penhalluriack. Yet, after meeting with John Bordignon who is in charge of Civic Compliance, there suddenly emerged another email 5 hours later which included these comments! The point was well made we feel. So we’re supposed to believe that if Penhalluriack made such seriously self-incriminating statements that it took 2 totally different emails and a meeting with Bordignon for these ‘facts’ to finally surface! Penhalluriack also claims that he has a witness to this alleged conversation between Taylor and himself and totally denies the statements in the Taylor witness affadavit.

Penhalluriack’s counsel also cited the Noel Arnold report which confirmed that there was a risk of ‘bacteria’ (including Legionella) and hence did represent a health risk. He emphasised that council had now implemented the recommendations contained in the report. Logically, if there was absolutely no danger, then there would not need to be any recommendations and any action taken. Penhalluriack was acting in the health interests of the community he stated and this is borne out by subsequent council actions in implementing the recommendations.

Council intends to call 8 witnesses – Newton, Burke, Jones among the top liners. No councillor will be called by council. Forge will testify on behalf of Penhalluriack.

PS – THE CAULFIELD LEADER

Glen Eira councillor defends misconduct allegations at VCAT

13 Aug 12 @ 06:14pm by Andrea Kellett

GLEN Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack has told VCAT he is the victim of a vendetta “manufactured” by the council’s chief executive, Andrew Newton.

Cr Penhalluriack is at the tribunal answering a series of allegations, including misconduct and harassing and humiliating Mr Newton.

Glen Eira Council told the tribunal Cr Penhalluriack had breached the council’s code of conduct multiple times since he was elected in 2008.

In April, Victorian Ombudsman George Brouwer recommended the council take Cr Penhalluriack to a councillor conduct panel as a result of five breaches of the Local Government Act.

Mr Brouwer investigated the claims of harassment against Mr Newton, which related to Cr Penhalluriack campaigning to close a free council-operated mulch service while his Caulfield hardware store sold mulch in bags.

Cr Penhalluriack rejected an in-house conduct panel hearing, preferring to have the allegations heard and defended at the public tribunal.

In his opening statement to VCAT today, Charles Gunst, QC, for Cr Penhalluriack, said 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.

However, the council told the tribunal Cr Penhalluriack had had made “offensive” and “derogatory” comments about senior staff in writing, had misused his position and failed to declare a conflict of interest relating to his building supplies business.

Richard Attiwill, for the council, said he would produce confidential tape recordings and witnesses including the chief executive and senior staff to prove his case.

On the closure of the council mulch service, which recently reopened, Mr Gunst said Cr Penhalluriack was motivated by a “real concern” about public health and had no increase in business after the closure.

Mr Attiwill said council had “no doubt that there were conflicts” between Cr Penhalluriack’s mulch selling and his public duties.”

The hearing continues.

August 11, 2012

Our Rates At Work – All ~$400,000!!

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

The following is set down for Monday 13th August at VCAT

Room 1.4 – Senior Member R. Davis, Member E. Bensz

10:00 AM B54/2012 Glen Eira CC v Frank Penhalluriack

10:00 AM B114/2012 Glen Eira CC v Frank Penhalluriack

August 11, 2012

Working For & With The Community?

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

590 Orrong Road Update

STONNINGTON TO CHALLENGE VCAT DECISION AT SUPREME COURT

Stonnington Council will appeal the recent VCAT decision on 590 Orrong Road, at the Supreme Court, based on an ‘error of law’.

The Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) had ruled in favour of Lend Lease, in July, granting a permit for a major, controversial development at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale, which drew significant community objection.

Stonnington Mayor, Councillor John Chandler said: “Council’s focus on appealing the VCAT decision is based on legal advice that there is an ‘error of law’ to be pursued, which presents the potential for a different decision to have been reached.

“The legal opinion considers that an error of law could be established, principally based on the tribunal’s express statement that “the number of objections to the proposed development was an irrelevant consideration.”

Cr Chandler said: “It is considered that VCAT failed to give due regard to significant community input and has made a decision that is not supported by the local community or Council. In Council’s view, the decision reflects a lack of consideration of neighbourhood character or respect for local community concerns around appropriate development.

“Council remains committed to seeking an appropriate planning outcome for the site.”

Documentation was lodged on Monday 6 August for Stonnington Council to be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

Source: Stonnington Council Media Release. There’s also an article in today’s Age by Jason Dowling. See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/supreme-court-challenge-to-armadale-complex-20120810-24017.html

August 9, 2012

What Price Open Space?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

The Glen Eira Residents’ Assoc. has a new post up which concentrates on the item that featured in both Leader newspapers this week – the sell off of the Alma Club. We think it is definitely worth a read.

It is also worthy of mention that apart from the mandatory figures provided in the Annual Budget on Open Space Contributions received from developers, residents know absolutely nothing about how this money is spent and what percentage is actually used to purchase new open space in the municipality. This is what the levy was set up to do. In Glen Eira however, we would wager that 95% is used to fund ‘facilities’ rather than the acquisition of open space as intended. For a municipality screaming out for open space this is a travesty.

But like everything else in Glen Eira, this is not a new issue. Searching the archives we find that in 2005 the following Request for Report was tabled at council meeting. We maintain that the answers to the questions asked are even more relevant today.

“Crs Marwick/Grossbard

That a report be provided before the next Council Meeting that gives;
1. The amount collected through open space levy categorised into postcodes from May 2003 to the present date, and
2. Details of where and how the levy has been spent.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”

August 9, 2012

Traffic (Mis)Management?

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

This comment has come in from a reader. Given the current shambles of traffic management in Glen Eira, we publish this in the public interest.

“My mind boggles at council’s approach to parking and traffic management. Major road works are underway in Kokarib Road Carnegie, the street behind Koornang Road where Safeway is located. The street is being totally rebuilt and council in their wisdom appear to have removed the angle parking outside Safeway and are replacing it with parallel parking. This will mean the loss of about around 8 or 9 car parking spaces outside the supermarket. These car spaces were nearly always fully occupied. My amazement at this loss of parking in Carnegie follows from seeing the result of roadworks and parking in Glen Huntly near Safeway. They effectively removed up to four car parking spaces on each side of the road near the post office.. I know traffic lights have been installed, but why would you reduce car parking? What benefit is there to shop keepers? What benefit is there to shoppers? What are the benefits at all?”

And we mustn’t forget another important question – what is the cost?

August 5, 2012

Council & The MRC: What Price Safety?

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

Council would like residents to believe that ‘safety’ is top of the priority list when it comes to all manner of things. The photos below of Queen’s Avenue reveal a different story:

the failure of council and the MRC to provide a safe environment via regular pruning of branches
bike riders who have to veer into the path of cars in order to avoid these branches.
joggers who would have to veer onto the road because of failure to regularly prune back trees and shrubbery
It’s quite bizarre that there’s an entry to the Racecourse precinct from Queens Av but you can’t get there safely on foot.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

August 2, 2012

The Ethics Of Planning

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

We raise an issue that has important ethical implications about the interdependence of developers and council planners. Two questions stand out:

How ‘impartial’ should a council planning officer be when he/she drafts the report to council?
To what extent should officers’ reports to council be an almost verbatim transcript of the developer’s proposal or, if not verbatim, then a very close paraphrasing of the application?
To what extent do officers rely completely on developers’ reports and to what extent to they do their own homework and investigations?

We focus here on two documents related to the proposed C80 amendment which seeks to rezone parts of Glen Huntly Rd in order to create a 5 storey, 62 unit dwelling with car parking waiver. Part of this site also featured in this week’s Leader, since there is another application in to create a recycling facility on a section of this proposed rezoned land. (See our previous post: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/pilling-foot-in-mouth-disease/)

We’ve located the Urbis ‘Planning Permit Report’ (104 pages) and compared this with the five and a half page officer report presented to councillors. It’s important to note that of this five and a half pages, more than two are taken up with the usual preliminaries and protocols – ie the processes involved in seeking amendments, and an opening page which outlines the proposal, plus the aerial view of the site. That leaves roughly 3 pages upon which councillors have to make their decision. Hardly adequate we believe! And especially inadequate when justification for recommending the proposal rests on such nebulous language as ‘appropriate’, “consistent”, “adequately cater”, etc. This is the part that is important. The rest of the item consists of architect drawings and a ten page draft Permit Application. We doubt that any councillor actually read this ‘permit’!

We’ve extracted some paragraphs from the Urbis report and compared this with the council planner’s effort. The selective plagiarism should be obvious to everyone and makes us seriously question not only the ethics of this, but also whether council planners by quoting, or paraphrasing so liberally can be seen as impartial adjudicators?

THE URBIS REPORT	COUNCIL OFFICER’S REPORT
“The proposed amendment provides opportunities for new economic growth and additional housing supply within the Glen Huntly Activity Centre. The existing N3Z applied to the subject land is designed to encourage the development of industries and associated uses which are becoming increasingly redundant within this area. This is evidenced by the number of vacant premises within the subject land. The rezoning of the land to B2Z allows for a different mix of possible land use outcomes that would be consistent with the Glen Huntly Activity Centre.”	The existing Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) applied to 1232-1258 Glen Huntly Road, supports industries and associated uses, which are becoming increasingly redundant within this area. This is evidenced by the number of vacant premises and nonindustrial uses operating with the area. Also the industrial zoning currently prohibits any residential use/development on the land (other than a caretaker’s dwelling). Therefore the rezoning has the potential to create opportunities for economic growth and additional housing supply consistent with the Glen Huntly Neighbourhood Centre.
“The majority of the subject land is currently zoned for industrial use. A Site Assessment Report, prepared by Douglas Partners has indicated that a number of the sites have had past and current land uses that are considered to be of medium to high potential for contamination, including 122 Grange Road, Carnegie. Therefore the amendment seeks to implement an Environmental Audit Overlay to the land to ensure that it is suitable for any future sensitive uses.	A chronological land use history of all the sites has been undertaken to identify whether the land is potentially contaminated. Based on these findings it is considered that there is medium to high potential for contamination. Therefore the application of an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to all of the land is required, to ensure that the land is suitable for any sensitive use, such as residential, in the future.
“The Framework Plan identifies the land as being located within a Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC). It is important to note, that the activity centre designation of the Glen Huntly is different from (sic) State Government’s perspective under Melbourne 2030. The B2Z encourages a range of office and associated commercial uses, which complement the core retail uses of the centre and achieve the desired strategic outcomes for an activity centre of this level.”	The rezoning of 122 Grange Road from Residential 1 to Business 2 is considered appropriate and will reflect the long term commercial use that has operated on the land since the 1950s. It will also facilitate future mixed use redevelopment opportunity of this prominent corner location. It is important to note that there currently is a discrepancy between State and Local Planning Policy in regards to the identification of the Glen Huntly Activity Centre. State Planning Policy identifies Glen Huntly as a Major Activity Centre (MAC). Council’s Local Planning Policy identifies this area as a Neighbourhood Centre.

August 2, 2012

How Not To Answer Public Questions!

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

The following stems from another public question asked at last council meeting. Whilst the original question is admittedly long and not numbered, we have attempted to organise the question and answer along some logical lines. This proved to be a most difficult task given that there is no real connection between what is asked and the response! All the questions relate to parking and traffic management in an upcoming Murrumbeena development.

Why hasn’t the council been pro active knowing that post development there will be traffic and parking issues?

Answer – William Street, Murrumbeena is situated within Council’s Housing Diversity Area. A key reason for this designation is the good access to public transport (including Hughesdale Railway Station) which provides opportunities for residents and their visitors not to use private vehicles. Development is therefore directed towards these areas.

What are councils plans regarding parking and traffic flow in and out of William st knowing that reports are already available.?

Answer – It is acknowledged that some additional vehicle movements will be experienced in William Street as a result of the new development however State Government Planning Guidelines state that reasonable traffic volume targets for local access streets are variously between 1,000 – 3,000 vehicles per day.

Why does the council continue to fail the residents and stakeholders regarding this development?

Answer: Council annually receives many requests for traffic management works but resources for works of this type are finite requiring prioritisation of resources. Resources are directed to those streets in greatest need of attention (not where new rateable homes are provided). Council operates a warrants system whereby streets are prioritised for attention on the basis of objective criteria including vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, reported crashes, peak hour traffic volumes and land uses (activity generators).

Why cant the the council be proactive and involve the residents and stakeholders with and open forum to appease concerns regarding access in and out of William st let alone parking post development?

Answer: Traffic counts will be undertaken following the occupation of the new apartments to determine the number of vehicles using William Street.

It is obvious that there will be traffic issues in William st post development, imagine 50 cars trying to get in and out of Poath rd in peak hour. keeing in mind cars parked in the street.

Answer: It is not appropriate to assume that traffic and parking impacts after construction will be unreasonable.

The resources are available as there is 41 new rateable homes, The information regarding traffic management is available and already supplied.

What is the councils plans to assit and appease the residents and stakeholders concerns regarding traffic and parking in William St Murrumbeena?”

Answer: Once data is collected in William Street, it will be added to this list to determine its priority for traffic management works.

July 30, 2012

Your Rates At Work!

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

In the interests of presenting the truth, we will conclude with the following slideshow. Please note:

the weeds
the mould/fungii
and the water logged and dead trees. We have plenty of photos of more dead trees. We estimate that each tree would have cost at least $50 given their size. More money literally down the drain!
We have to ask: do these people really know what they are doing?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates