GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

June 23, 2012

O’Neill Bites The Dust!

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

After all the huff and puff about bullying it looks like all the money that has been spent on O’Neill and other lawyers has finally bitten the dust. It no longer constitutes any of the charges that Penhalluriack will be facing at VCAT.

O’Neill cost ratepayers just over $10,000 – or so it’s claimed. We don’t believe a word of this! We would think that the sum would be closer to three times this amount and that’s a very conservative estimate. When the lawyer for the Heritage/Esakoff farce cost $9000 for half a day’s performance, then you can bet your bottom dollar that O’Neill would have cost much, much more. Then there are the further expenses with additional advice by probably heaps of other lawyers (ie Maddocks & did Tang declare a conflict of interest each time?) on what to do with the O’Neill report and how to go about the Councillor Conduct Panel processes. More money down the drain! The gang even resolved to send Penhalluriack to bullying classes and offered to spend up to $2,500.

So after all these costs, after all the hullaballoo about bullying, what’s happened? Why has this suddenly all gone out the window? If the ‘evidence’ was so strong, so invincible, so irrefutable, surely it would still be part of the actual VCAT charges? But it’s not.

This alone reveals the extent to which the entire O’Neill saga lacks credibility and demands a full investigation. How anyone could devise the pages and pages of ‘allegations’ and then not to follow through is astonishing. How councillors could be led by the nose over such a report is even more astonishing.

So after months and months of toing and froing, the allegations of bullying made by Newton have now ended up in the dustbin of history. Why? Especially since the minutes record both Hyams and Lipshutz continually resorting to the language of ‘bullying’ when they gagged Penhalluriack’s right to ask questions.

History tells us that Newton has had an unfortunate period at the helm. There has been claim after claim of ‘bullying’. History also tells us that each time his contract has come up for renewal, ratepayers are slugged with huge legal bills. Council itself has admitted to approximately $40,000 for one reappointment not so long ago. Again, we have to ask, why? We doubt very much whether any other CEO in the state would have such a record, nor whether any other CEO in the state has been at the centre of so many legal squabbles and investigations.

When councillors take leave of their senses, and ostensibly forget their obligations to spend ratepayers’ money wisely, instead deciding to blindly follow the leader as has happened so often in Glen Eira, then it is surely time that residents started questioning the ability of these individuals to govern anything. Witch-hunts and kangaroo courts do not in our view equate with good governance, prudence, and principles of natural justice. We do not need to remind readers that this whole sorry mess is still far from over. And meanwhile, the cash register continues to click over at our expense.

 

June 22, 2012

Budget & Community Plan: The Continuing ‘Consultation’ Con

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[25] Comments 

We urge all residents to peruse the so-called revamped Community/Council Plan and the proposed Budget to be decided on Tuesday night. After all the submissions, community forums, consultants’ reports and public presentations, nothing but nothing that residents highlighted as major concerns, has been adequately addressed and rectified. Projected increases in rates and charges remain the same; expenditure on vital infrastructure such as drains, roads, footpaths remains unchanged. All that has changed is some token motherhood statements about ‘investigating’ the possibility of introducing a Development Contributions Levy (!!!!!!),a Tree Register, and a Community Garden. The ‘measures’ of course basically entail a ‘report’ or ‘investigation’ or ‘review’ back to Council. We don’t need a crystal ball to know that these reports will state that:

  • These things are too expensive to (re)introduce, or
  • There is no available land in all of Glen Eira suitable for community gardens, etc.

What residents need to note in regards to rates is that in 2011/12 we were charged 3.0932 cents in the dollar. This year (to accommodate the 6.5% increase) this has jumped to 3.2425 on each property. Funnily enough, the MRC continues to receive a very handsome subsidy for all its land and occupied property. They are charged “a rate of 76% of the General Rate in the dollar which would otherwise be payable in respect of the land”. Ratepayers are therefore subsidising the MRC to the tune of 24%!!!!!!

These redrafted documents make it absolutely clear that this administration and its councillors have no intention of listening to residents and acting upon community views in a responsive and responsible fashion. Consultation has been, and is, nothing more than an empty, and costly, public relations exercise.

PS: we’ve decided to go into a little more detail to illustrate precisely what’s wrong with this ‘new’  “Action Plan”. We will examine some of these in the order they appear.

Added: “Review and update Council Policy “Exclusion of Specific Developments from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme” to implement measures to ensure multi dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking.” The listed ‘measure’ is: “Report a revised policy to Council.” Please note the vagueness of the language – “measures”, “adequate”. How “adequate” will be ascertained and evaluated is of course unstated. Further it remains nothing more than “policy” rather than full integration into the Planning Scheme.

Added: “Implement capital program including traffic calming measures in local streets informed by the Transport Strategy, Road Safety Strategy and the Local Area Traffic Management Priority System.” All well and good. But if the budget has actually reduced expenditure on these areas then all the policies in the world remain useless documents. 4 speed humps per year for the past 6 years does not fill anyone with confidence that traffic management is a high priority for this council.

The action proposed is: “Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals”. The ‘new’ measure reads: “Ensure Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies are working by directing most dwellings to Housing Diversity.” Apart from the fact that the ‘measure’ and the ‘action’ are not integrated, there is no intention in this to even consider the possibility that the Housing Diversity/Minimal Change policies are ineffective, if not straight out discriminatory. We’ve already been told that nearly 50% of new dwellings do not go into housing diversity!

Added: “Refuse under Manager Delegation all applications which are deemed non-compliant with Council’s Minimal Change Area Policy”. Well, hallelujah!  Does this mean that previously applications that weren’t ‘complaint’ were actually given permits? And what about Housing Diversity Areas? These are, as per normal, totally ignored in the Action Plan.

Added: “Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan Report”. The stated measure is: “Report provided to Council.” Reminds us of a wonderful ethnic expression – “only donkeys go backwards”!

Finally, there is much, much more that we could have included but the result would be pages and pages. We again urge residents to find out for themselves how their views and aspirations have once again been totally ignored or watered down so that they become meaningless. Spin and inaction remain at the top of the list for Glen Eira administrators and councillors.  All the issues which residents highlighted – planning, traffic, open space, governance, etc. – are untouched and unsolved, whilst the same old agendas of pro-development, more and more taj mahals, and increased rates are very much alive and well in our municipality.

 

June 16, 2012

The Bastardry Continues!

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

Below is an email which the journalist Keith Moor sent to Cr Penhalluriack prior to his article on the recent boarding house fines. We cite this email in full – apart from the journalist’s phone number.

“Dear Mr Penhalluriack, I am writing an article for tomorrow’s Herald Sun about an illegal backpacker hostel which is being run from 339 Hawthorn Rd and which the Glen Eira Council is attempting to have shut down or brought up to the fire safety standards required of a rooming house.

I have copies of letters written by the council to the property owner. I have done a property search on it and found the company K.I.Penhalluriack owns the property. I have done a company search and found you and your wife are the directors of that company.

Can you please call me at work on xxxxx so I can get some comment from you to include in the article.

Cheers

Keith Moor”

COMMENT:

  • Whether or not Moor contacted Council first, or whether Council contacted Moor over this issue palls into insignificance with the admission that Moor has ‘copies of letters written by council’. We believe that this is in breach of the Privacy Act and certainly unethical.
  • Who sent the documents to the Herald Sun? Why were these documents sent? One unavoidable conclusion has to be that this is just another  shot in the long running smear campaign?
  • What faith should residents therefore have in any ‘private’ information that this council holds about them and the adherence to both ethical and legal practice?

For those readers unfamiliar with the Information Privacy Act, we cite the following sections and ask that the actions of this administration be seen in the light of these.

The Information Privacy Act states (in part) in relation to the disclosure of information to a third party –

“An organisation must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose (the secondary purpose) other than the primary purpose of collection unless—

(a) both of the following apply—

(i) the secondary purpose is related to the primary purpose of collection and, if the personal information is sensitive information, directly related to the primary purpose of collection;

(ii) the individual would reasonably expect the organisation to use or disclose the information for the secondary purpose;or

(b) the individual has consented to the use or disclosure; or

(c) if the use or disclosure is necessary for research, or the compilation or analysis of statistics, in the public interest, other than for publication in a form that identifies any particular individual—

(i) it is impracticable for the organisation to seek the individual’s consent before the use or disclosure”

Glen Eira Council’s Privacy Policy also states: “Council will only use personal information within Council, or disclose it outside Council, for the purpose for which it was collected or in accordance with the Act (eg where it has obtained consent or where the person would reasonably expect this to occur)”.

 

June 14, 2012

Community Plan Presentations

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Speaker #1: assumed that councillors had read the submission. Began with Open Space contributions and wondered how this was being used since it did not appear to be clearly stated, “so I can only assume that it’s being used for operation costs” and not to purchase land. Suggested that the Audit committee might want to have a look at this if it has been an ongoing practice. Next comment related to inappropriate development and the speaker reinforced the significance of structure plans which can lead to ‘best quality development’. Urged council not to dismiss this strategy. Congratulated council on GESAC but said that we’re now in the ‘post GESAC era’ and need to move on because there are other important projects to consider. Called for a ‘fresh look’ at the plan because it didn’t appear to be very different from earlier plans. It needed more ‘visionary concepts’, more ‘innovative concepts’. Stated that the Steering committee should have consulted with the people who took part in the forums ‘before rushing’ and felt this was the real problem – everything was rushed. Claimed that the council website ‘crashed regularly’. A new website was needed ‘that encompassed more than’ information about administration but that it include information on businesses, sports groups and culture. Said that there should be more stories ‘about community groups’ and more for the ‘disconnected and alone’.

Didn’t think the chamber was particularly welcoming and suggested that councillor’s motions could be put up on a screen, as could the amendments, so that the gallery knows what is being discussed or debated. A strong plea to establish ‘permanent community reference panels’ which would be regularly consulted and would cover everything from church groups to social and sporting groups. Finished by saying that ‘the negativity which runs consistently’ through the submissions should be listened to and not disregarded as a simple minority voice. Said that ‘these are community members who care enough to listen’, read the documents  and they should be heard.

SPEAKER#2: started by stating that after all the consultations, surveys and consultants’ reports overdevelopment, traffic, governance are issues that have been highlighted. These issues aren’t new and have been numerous times over the years. Stated that residents have been continually told that ‘council listens’, but it’s now past this listening phase and that it should be the time for action instead of merely listening. Didn’t think that the current draft plan tackled residents’ concerns. What was lacking were structure plans, height limits, parking plans, levies. Many of council’s policies go back over a decade and are ‘archaic’ and out of date. Concluded with the comment that the community plan provides what it calls ‘strategies’ but these aren’t strategies and ‘measures’ aren’t ‘measures’. Funding for things like drains has been cut, but this is what the community expects council to be doing. Action is what’s needed much more than listening.

SPEAKER #3: Agreed with the points made by earlier speakers. Stated that when council continually puts up rates there should also be a criteria and reporting on ‘productivity improvement’ which should match inflation. These should be reported on quarterly and with clear measures on how this has been achieved.

TANG then asked any of the presenters about one of the points made by GERA about parking permits in residential streets. Asked for examples and said that the ‘solution’ was not something he had been asked about before. One of the presenters responded by saying that currently residents can receive parking permits for adjacent streets regardless of how well these adjacent streets can meet demand. Resident requests for traffic counts have increased dramatically so parking and rat runs are a problem. Stonnington has a policy where new medium developments don’t get parking permits forcing developers to provide on site parking.

TANG asked the second speaker about developer contributions levies and that when Council removed it, it was because it was costing more to operate than the monies received. Said that the majority of councils had ‘got rid of it’ or don’t ‘administer it’. The speaker responded that the Government is probably going to introduce a ‘standardised one’. Another presenter stated that it would be about 8%.

TANG thanked submitters. Said that councillors now needed to go away and reflect on the submissions. Said that he didn’t think that the plan was ‘doing justice to the broader community consultation process’…’timeframe doesn’t allow us to take advantage’ (of committee and responses and that council should take some of community views) ‘on board’. There were also ‘ideological points’ that council would ‘have to grapple with’.  Stated that all the requested changes couldn’t all happen at once and they would have to be staggered over time. That priorities such as changing footpath expenditure to drains, or the pavilion strategy…’tough decisions there….we can’t do them all….some by re-prioritising’.

MAGEE: also thanked submitters and stated that putting things in writing is time consuming and ‘commendable’. Said that reading the submissions he thought that some of the suggestions council was already doing and that Glen Eira is a ‘very, very good council’. Admitted that it’s only over the past 18 months that he’s learnt ‘what it is to be a councillor’ and that the submissions ‘mean more’ to him now than when he first started as councillor. Believed that ‘I do genuinely listen when I’m told what’s wrong’…’we do have structure plans’…’it’s not policy on the run’ (advice they get is)’good advice’. Some of the suggestions put forward ‘make sense’….’there’s some good stuff in here’. Said that residents shouldn’t wait for formal submissions but contact councillors directly at all times.

HYAMS: also thanked submitters and those involved in consultation. Said that ‘there certainly are improvements that can be made to the plan’. The steering committee would meet on Thursday night. Further discussions would happen and ‘hope to adopt it’ on 26th June.

TANG: Said that the website update would hopefully address ‘some of the issues’ raised. Said he had some ideas that would be discussed with the committee.

 

June 8, 2012

What Residents Think

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

Just some extracts from the first few submissions. We will put up others shortly.

  1. “ One only example of the continuing entrenched systemic culture of intentional poor governance. Repeated unfair treatment of lies, misleading deception, misrepresentation, secrecy, lack of openness, transparency, genuine accountability, responsibility, honesty, integrity, or good faith”…..”Any rate rise above CPI is excessive.”
  2. “Everything that I’ve loved about living in this area has now gone and been destroyed. A lot of the blame I think is because of the way you councillors have allowed development to happen without really thinking about what it does to ordinary families like mine…..”I just want you to know that you as councillors will have to have it on your conscience about what you’re doing to people. There’s lots that you could do but you’re not doing anything worthwhile that I can see will help families. It’s all for the developers and nothing in the plan will stop this.”
  3. “My husband and I would like Option 2 (Passive Recreational Space) we both feel that we are already adequately served with various sporting facilities and spaces within the City of Glen Eira.”
  4. “The projected population/household increases need to be managed by Council and not driven by developers. It would be better to have more two or three single storey units per site which is more in line with why people chose to live in Caulfield/Glen Eira. The livability of the municipality can not accommodate any more inappropriate jerry-built future slums with their associated traffic and litter issues.”
  5. “the area should be developed as a Australian Native Garden”
  6. “The interviews/focus groups sample and factor analysis has given us some information. The on-line survey had Five relevant/pertinent questions, the forums as noted by me previously asked question re issues.concerns not priorities. We should be aiming for consistency of information sought across all groups.”
  7. “”The apparent use of Pulbic Open Space levies by GE Council to maintain open space is entirely wrong. It disadvantages both developers and the public. Open space levies should be used exclusively to fund the acquisition of open space. Maintenance costs for parks should be funded from operational budgets…..Shortly after the period of consultation for the Community Plan began, I downloaded all of the documents, which included a Community Plan 2008-2013. I struggled to understand why we were asked to consider this document but continued to refer to it. Today (June 5th) I discovered that the plan on-line has recently been replaced with a document titled the “Glen Eira Community Plan”. There is no date on the plan and therefore I do not know the years it intended to cover. I assume however that this is the document GE Council wants me to read…..My initial impression is that most of the plan is filled with motherhood statements – and fails to acknowledge and address the key concerns of the community being, inappropriate development and the impact of rates….When will GE Council introduce Structure Plans for its three significant activity centres?….When will GE Council introduce the Local Law that permits a Notice of Motion? When will GE Councillors be trained to use the microphone and to speak loudly enough to be heard by all sitting in the public gallery? Will GE Council consider establishing S86 committees as Community reference Panels to include those community members who wish to be involved in decision-making processes of GE Council?….Will GE Council introduce a policy whereby no trees will be removed without an opportunity for community feedback and without presenting the findings of the experts that advise removal?…Will GE council introduce a scheme whereby Victoria Seniors Cards are accepted for discount rates (albeit this may only be a off-peak) providing access for Card Holders to GE Faciliting including GESAC as at other aquatic centres around Victoria?”
 

June 8, 2012

Cram ‘Em In!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

The agenda papers for Tuesday night’s council meeting are choka block. It’s becoming something of a trend that all the really important items are quite often crammed into one meeting agenda. In contrast to last meeting, we now have:

  • Several contentious planning applications
  • Several amendments
  • Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why? (Another PS: We’ve been informed that the GERA submission via email did not arrive. It can still be inserted into the agenda for Tuesday).
  • A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is now well over $2 million  and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Perhaps this latter item is the reason that the accountants can now claim that the “liquidity ratio” is still around 1?
  • An officer’s report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!

We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.

Finally, in light of a recent VCAT member’s comments on the lack of Council notification to residents about applications, the same old game is going on. This includes: 11 properties and 12 notifications resulting in 33 objections; another one is 9 properties and 10 notifications resulting in 75 objections and 2 petitions. The patterns of inverse correlations are alive and well in Glen Eira!

The agenda papers for Tuesday night’s council meeting are choka block. It’s becoming something of a trend that all the really important items are quite often crammed into one meeting agenda. In contrast to last meeting, we now have:

  • Several contentious planning applications
  • Several amendments
  • Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why?
  • A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is not well over $2 million  and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Again, perhaps this is the reason that the accountants can now claim that Council’s Working Capital Ratio at the end of April is suddenly sitting at 2.24!!!
  • An officers report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!

We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is again just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.

Finally, in light of a recent VCAT member’s comments on the lack of Council notification to residents about applications, the same old game is going on. This includes: 11 properties and 12 notifications resulting in 33 objections; another one is 9 properties and 10 notifications resulting in 75 objections and 2 petitions. The patterns of inverse correlations are alive and well in Glen Eira!

PS: we’ve had a closer look at the Glen Huntly Rd application for 14 units. The Ron Torres report informs readers that this is in a Housing Diversity Area, along tram lines, but abutts a Minimal Change Area. So far, so good. What we do have an issue with is the (deliberately?) misleading language. Torres for example refers to the whizz bang proposed c90 Amendment (transition zone) and states: “Council’s proposed Amendement C90 (Transition Sites in Housing Diversity  abutting a Minimal Change Area) sets prescriptive measures to achieve development respectful of the character of adjoining  sites in Minimal Change Areas”.  Yet, when one looks back to the minutes of August 30th 2011, we find that this Amendment is described as “Through this proposed amendment Council is seeking to reinforce and add clarity by introducing and adding prescription to the above policy requirement.  However, if approved, it would still be (only) a policy and not a control”.

Subtle, but also misleading! Next the Torres report goes on to argue that the conditions imposed would make things all right. However, these conditions do NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES ON TRAM LINES AS STATED IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. The Amendment specifically states “The threshold position does not apply to sites located along a tram route …”. Isn’t it time that the reports written by officers were 100% accurate and that the language used wasn’t designed to mislead and deceive?

 

June 6, 2012

Community Plan/Budget: Short On ‘Solutions’

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

The draft Community Plan deserves credit for highlighting the problems and issues which will, and already are, impacting dramatically on residents. One doesn’t need a crystal ball to realise that traffic management, planning, and open space are key concerns. The Community Plan has this to say on these matters:

Population/Planning: “Additional dwellings required to support population changes in the future will impact upon Council’s town planning, traffic, parking, assets and infrastructure services. The appropriateness of new development and maintaining heritage of local housing continues to be a strong concern of local residents. Council needs to work with the State Government to ensure Victorian planning controls appropriately balance the needs of current and future residents.”

Traffic: “The Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity 2009 (VISTA) commissioned by the Department of Transport reveals that 72 per cent of all trips in Glen Eira during a weekday are undertaken as a car driver or passenger, ten per cent use public transport, 15 per cent walking and two per cent use a bicycle. These facts reveal opportunities to target and promote sustainable transport options”.

So, what STRATEGIES, what actions, what performance measures and what investment does the budget and the Strategic Resource Plan propose in order to address and resolve these ‘problems’. Sadly, very little. The above quotes are a good indication of how bereft, and unwilling, council is to tackle the core of the problem rather than merely tinkering with the edges. Planning should be about more than ‘maintaining heritage’ or working with government. It needs to ensure that the Planning Scheme has done everything it possibly can to ‘appropriately balance the needs of current and future residents’. There is no mention of this in the Action Plan apart from the very limited C87 and the ‘transition’ policy – already rubber stamped! Nor will the creation of 4 speed humps per year solve the growing problem of rat runs through local residential streets. If ‘safety’ is the primary concern, then much, much more needs to be planned and budgeted for. Residents should really ask: how many traffic lights have been installed; how many pedestrian crossings; how many roundabouts; how many splitter islands in the past two years?

The most obvious failing of these plans is the inability (or perhaps deliberate) blurring of what constitutes a strategy and an objective. We maintain that very few ‘strategies’ exist. The community/council plan is loaded with lofty goals, but is short on feasible, comprehensive strategies. The result is a complete lack of integration between goals, strategies and performance measures. Yet, heading after heading proudly states ‘strategy’. The following are NOT strategies – they are warm, fluffy, motherhood statements undoubtedly intended to provide the illusion that something is actually being done. We ask readers: are these ‘strategies’?

  • Improve safety and movement of road users and provide a fair and equitable balance of parking.
  • Improve road safety and manage congestion on the local road network.
  • Plan for a mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in different stages of their life-cycle within the City.
  • Ensure new multi-dwelling residential development is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character in Glen Eira’s minimal change areas
  • Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process.
  • Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.

The list goes on an on. None are carefully laid out strategies that clarify, detail, nor provide clear criteria against which performance may be evaluated in the Action Plan and its ‘measures’. The result will be more of the same – a budget and council/community plan big on rhetoric, but failing in action and appropriate funding.

 

June 5, 2012

VCAT: More Council Failures?

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

Readers may remember a highly contentious planning application for 1a Albany Court, North Caulfield. This was for the extension of numbers and access for a synagogue. The gallery was full of objectors and the decision by councillors was split. This has now gone (again) to VCAT in the hope to extend the pedestrian carriageway. The full VCAT decision may be accessed at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/669.html

We present some extracts from the member’s decision which highlights the fact that Council:

  • Hasn’t sought enforcement orders for continual breaches of the permit
  • Hasn’t bothered to notify residents of this new application

“The Council explained there had been a synagogue (shul) operating at 1A Albany Court for a number of years without planning approval.”

“Nearby residents oppose this application for two main reasons. The first reason is the history of non-compliance by the permit applicant with the planning scheme (for operating an illegal synagogue); with the current planning permit (for erecting a walkway that is not on the land to which the permit applies); and other non-compliance with permit conditions. This is not a matter that I can deal with as this application is not an enforcement proceeding for compliance with the planning permit.”

“The Council initially opposed this amendment but during the hearing advised it no longer opposed this because the amendment is a relatively minor requirement. On the face of it, the creation of an easement may be considered a secondary aspect of this proposal. However, it is also an aspect for which separate planning permission is required and the Council needs to then determine if material detriment may result that necessitates the giving of public notice. As the planning application lodged with the Council has not been processed, I am not aware if the Council made a decision on this aspect of the processing of the application. In any event, the notification given as part of this section 87A application was limited to four properties at 2 and 3 Albany Court, 4 Grimwade Court and 18 Kambea Grove. If notice was required as part of a planning application, it would have been to at least the adjoining properties (as the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires), and the notification undertaken by the Applicant in this case does not include all properties adjoining 2 St Aubins Avenue. Further, the extent of notification given in this application did not include all persons who originally objected, nor the persons who were originally notified of the proposed synagogue at 1 and 1A Albany Court (as identified in the Council’s Practice Note material provided to the Tribunal after lodgement of this application). For all of these reasons, I am not persuaded it is appropriate to include the additional planning permission for the creation of an easement in this permit”

 

June 3, 2012

Racecourse: The Clayton’s ‘Agreement’

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

We’ve received quite a few comments of late relating to the Council/MRC ‘agreement’ and the fact that the promised actions have not eventuated. If anything, the MRC has gone on its merry way, totally ignoring Council and the community.

Adding insult to injury is the total silence by the Special Committee (Lipshutz, Pilling, Hyams and Esakoff) – as well as the administration. Apart from 2 planning applications not a word has come from these sources. Nor have we heard a single mutter from the Trustees – Magee, Forge, and Tang (when the latter actually makes it to meetings!) Nothing but nothing has been reported upon: no ‘progress’ reports, no minutes, no media releases, no statements. Residents have been left dangling with no information and no knowledge of what is really going on. Once again Council mission statements of transparency and accountability belong to the Goebbel’s school of propaganda (to use an old Lipshutz analogy).

The only information to eke out has been the result of public questions demanding explanations for the failure to inform residents of street closures. The pathetic response included:

“The recent notification provided by Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) to residents for the Caravan and Camping Show was disappointing and unacceptable and the MRC has been so advised. Consequently as a basis for more timely notification to residents, Council officers have advised the MRC that a calendar of all their future events is to be provided .

The process is that a traffic management plan is prepared by the MRC and reviewed by Council for every event that is expected to significantly impact traffic conditions in the vicinity of the Racecourse Reserve.

As traffic management arrangements are continually being trialled to ensure impacts to residents are minimised (and different events have different traffic management requirements), no formal agreement can be put in place with the MRC regarding which roads would be impacted (and for how long) or which roads are closed.“ 

Has this ‘calendar’ materialised? What does ‘significant’ mean? Is ‘no formal agreement’ a euphemism for ‘the MRC can continue to do what it likes, when it likes?’

As to the events themselves, here is a list of what’s been happening at the Racecourse for the past 8 months or so and how ‘access’ for the public has been handled. We’ve probably missed some, so the list shouldn’t be seen as complete.

EVENT

 DURATION

GATES

Caulfield Guineas

 1 day

closed

Caulfield Cup

 1 day

closed

Baby & Kids   Market

1 day

  

Sewing & Craft   Show

4 days

  

Monash Exams

5 days

  

Platinum Play   Family Fund Day

 1 day

Queen’s Ave closed

Monash Exams

10 days

  

Carlton &   United Breweries Family Xmas Day

 1 day

Queen’s Ave closed

Wholesale Direct   Shopping Evening

1 evening

  

Mathilda Market

1 day

  

Building &   Construction Workers xmas

 1 day

Closed (high noise   level)

Metricon Xmas   Function

1 day

  

Harvest & Graze

1 day

  

Caravan & Camping   Show

 6 days

Closed – used for   parking

Twins Plus Festival

1 day

  

Caulfield Farmers’   Market

1 day

  

Carex – Health &   Aged Expo

2 days

  

Age VCE Career Expo

4 days

  

Caulfield Farmers’   Market

1 day

  

Open University   Exams

 4 days  
Early Childhood   Development

2 days

  

Circus (one already held & one upcoming)

2 MONTHS (WITH SOME DAYS 2 SHOWS A DAY)

  

Just these figures alone give us a tally of roughly 130 days. Wouldn’t it be good to know how much REVENUE Council receives as a result of all these fixtures? Or does it all go to the MRC and not a cent returned to Council?

Surely if this venue is to hold so many events then a traffic management plan IS essential and should be made public. It is also incumbent on Council to ensure that all gates are open as per the agreement.

The issue of fences, pathways and other ‘developments’ in the centre, we will leave to another post.

 

June 2, 2012

Public Relations!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

Mean test on seniors at Glen Eira pool

2 Jun 12 @  05:05am by Jessica Bennett

David and Marilyn Murphy don't receive a Seniors' Card pool discount. Picture: HILTON STONE N48MS704

David and Marilyn Murphy don’t receive a Seniors’ Card pool discount. Picture: HILTON STONE

KEEN Murrumbeena swimmers are disappointed the new Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre won’t offer Seniors Card discounts.

David Murphy, aged 60, and Marilyn Murphy, 59, said they swam every second day at the Carnegie outdoor pool, which is only open during the summer.

He said they decided to try the Glen Eira centre and were dismayed to find their seniors’ cards weren’t accepted as concession cards.

“When I received my Seniors Card last December I very proudly presented it at the Carnegie pool and they accepted it,” Mr Murphy said.

He said the aquatic centre manager told him the cards weren’t accepted because they were not means tested.

“Most who take the trouble to get Seniors Cards are self-funded retirees who are comfortable but not rich,” Mr Murphy said.

“Some seniors would clearly be using the indoor facilities for health and rehabilitation.

“I hope this doesn’t stop them from using the centre.

“It just seems a bit petty. Would it really matter if one billionaire got a $1 discount?”

Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke confirmed Seniors Cards were not accepted at any council sports facilities as they were not a means-tested concession card.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »