GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

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:

  1. How ‘impartial’ should a council planning officer be when he/she drafts the report to council?
  2. 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?
  3. 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.

 

 

July 30, 2012

More Porkies?

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

This is a continuation from previous post and features another of the bogus council answers.

Q4 – In the past year council has laid hundreds of metres of ‘instant grass’ along the concrete path edges. How much did this cost? And how does council now justify the fact that the mulch covers this newly laid grass?

Answer – The total cost of the grass sods along sections of the new pathway trail was approximately $6,000. The sods stabilised the edge of the pathway, making the pathway safe for users of the path. Council arranged the mulching the following year and extended it to the edge of the path for ease of ongoing maintenance. This involved removing some of the sods. 

COMMENT: “Ease of ongoing maintenance”?!!!!!! Hardly. Over time mulch settles so that the edges of the pathway gain huge 3 to 4 inch drops – a perfect way to break an ankle, or come off a bicycle. Secondly, this will mean continual replenishing of mulch, the continual weeding, or worse, continual poisoning of these weeds. We already note that in one Record of Assembly Pilling enquired about the poisons so liberally used throughout our parks and their safety.

More importantly, the following photos reveal the truth about what occurred and the deliberately misleading response provided by Council. The hundreds of metres of grass sods planted were largely unnecessary. These photos reveal that after twice bringing in truckloads of earth in order to level out the sides of the path, that the grass had finally taken. The sods were not removed. The mulch was simply spread over the top of the existing sods without any regard for the allegedly $6000 already spent. The photos below showing the same positions in the trail provide clear evidence that:

  1. Vast areas of “stable” grass was needlessly ripped up at ratepayers’ expense
  2. Previous green ‘open space’ is now unusable

Ratepayers need to ask themselves whether this is really ‘best value’ for our money and how much faith to place in the responses to public questions.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

July 28, 2012

A Tale Of Porkies!

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

When residents ask public questions then they have every right to expect that the responses they receive and signed by the Mayor will constitute the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Far too often, this is not the case. Our latest example concerns another public question from last week’s council meeting. We will break this down so that it is easier for readers to follow – ie. the question, followed by the response and then the photographic evidence which belies what council claims. This will occur over several posts and all relate to the Elster Creek Trail.

Question 1 –  Given the Noel Arnold recommendations on the handling of mulch materials, why have council employees not adhered to these recommendations when carting, laying, and spreading the mulch – especially the requirement to wear masks, gloves and goggles?

Answer – Staff and contractors are trained in the safe handling of mulch and use appropriate personal protective equipment for the nature of the works.

 

COMMENTS: The Noel Arnold report stated:”Based on a literature review of the health and safety risks associated with composts, soil conditioners and mulches, and the warnings applied to commercially available mulch, users may still be potentially exposed to bacteria and fungi….”. Please note: Council has admitted this mulch was ‘commercial’. It lay in huge piles fermenting and emitting steam prior to being spread. Further, the Arnold report made these recommendations: “To protect staff from potential risks, provide training, instructions, information and appropriate personal protective equipment to Council employees likely to come in contact with this material. The personal protective equipment that is recommended for Council employees handling the mulch material is: disposable dust mask; gloves; washing of hands after use”.

The photos clearly show that NONE of these safety precautions were employed. Who is responsible? What oversight was taken by those in charge? Why is the response to the question so dissembling if not a straight out porky? Note – as an admitted ‘commercial’ mulch, this comes under Australian Standards and hence is arguably more ‘dangerous’ than mere leaf and chip mulch! Not only has Council failed to adhere to the Arnold recommendations – they have ignored the Australian Standards thereby potentially putting their employees at risk.

If readers click on the image they will see the piles of mulch waiting to be spread. There are many other photos not included here.

 

July 26, 2012

Newton V’s Penhalluriack: $271,000 And Rising!

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

We’ve titled this post “Newton v’s Penhalluriack’ since this is the crux of what we believe to be at the heart of the entire matter. Whatever the personalities of these two individuals, whatever their differences of opinion, we do not consider the expenditure of $271,000 (and rising) on “legal advice” by this Council is justified under any circumstances. The amount that has been spent by council is nothing short of scandalous.

The running costs were revealed as a result of a public question, which we will present once the minutes come out – together with Council’s response and Penhalluriack’s ‘Right of Reply’. First however, the following facts need to be made clear:

  • When a councillor is sent to a Councillor Conduct Panel (CCP) the legislation states that there is to be no legal representation. It is intended to be ‘secret’ and ‘informal’. The findings of such a Panel are then to be included in Council Minutes. Ostensibly this sounds reasonable, except that in Glen Eira’s case ‘legal advice’ had already reached thousands and thousands of dollars (ie O’Neill Report and countless lawyers on forwarding the documentation to the CCP) prior to any actual hearing. The same privilege is not afforded to the defendant (respondent)
  • The members of such Panels are assigned from a list compiled by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV). Many of these members, if not all, are former local government bureaucrats, including former CEOs. Hence it is plausible to suspect that the culture, mentality and ‘old boys system’ may be well entrenched. In a recent case at Hobson’s Bay that ended up at VCAT for example, the MAV selected member was challenged and had to remove himself from the case since it turns out he was the previous CEO of Hobson’s Bay!
  • When a CCP is held, the 2 MAV members are paid for by council. Their fees for a single day (in 2008) totalled over $1500. Again, such hearings may go for many days.
  • The CCP may do one of two things – order the case to VCAT for consideration of ‘serious misconduct’, or make its own findings. The defendant may request that the case goes immediately to VCAT. Legal representation is permitted at VCAT.
  • Under all jurisdictions, the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and ‘natural justice’ must apply. The current system has many flaws we believe, as outlined above – in particular the ability of council to enlist legal advice prior to any formal allegations yet not have the accused afforded the same resources. This goes against the fundamentals of our justice system. It should, if justice is to be seen as truly ‘even handed’.
  • Finally it’s worth questioning whether Council (and hence ratepayers) have actually received ‘value for money’ from all this legal advice? Allegation after allegation has been whittled down to just four. The main substance of the O’Neill report has bitten the dust big time and at the first VCAT hearing Council was ordered to go away and reduce its mess of allegations into something that was succinct, logical, and presentable. We assume that the lawyers were paid regardless of these deficiencies! Now we face the situation of more lawyers and the potential for a 7 day hearing at VCAT. How much will this cost? And for what?
  • Should any blame be assigned to councillors for their role in all this? Charged with dealing ‘prudently’ and ‘responsibly’ over council finances how on earth can they ever justify this kind of expenditure on a case that really boils down to Newton vs Penhalluriack?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »