GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 6, 2012

Council Plan: Planning & Development

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

Below is the section on Planning & Development from the Council Action Plan for 2012/3. We’ve numbered each ‘activity’ for ease of following.

Strategic Activity	Action	Measure
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.	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.	Report the number of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas quarterly
2. Enforce the provisions of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and building control requirements across the City as well as compliance with any planning permits.	Conduct proactive site inspections for compliance with planning permit conditions and Local Law requirements, and investigate building enforcement matters. Enforce building control requirements.	300 proactive site inspections completed 200 building enforcement matters investigated
3. Ensure new multi-dwelling residential development is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character in Glen Eira’s minimal change areas.	Make decisions in accordance with Council’s Minimal Change area policy with an emphasis on Neighbourhood Character.	Report the number of neighbourhood character assessments carried out on residential developments within Minimal Change areas quarterly.
4. Strengthen town planning protection of residential areas identified as having significant character.	Prepare a planning scheme amendment which uses the Neighbourhood Character overlay to better protect areas displaying significant character.	Following a report of independent Panel, Neighbourhood Character Overlay actioned in accordance with Council resolution
5. Reduce the intensity of residential development within Housing Diversity areas which interface with minimal change areas.	Prepare a planning scheme amendment which moderates the intensity of residential development at the interface of the Housing diversity/ Minimal Change policy areas.	Once authorisation for the planning scheme amendment is obtained from State Government place the Transitions Policy on public exhibition
6. Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process.	Promote Council’s suite of fast track permit application processes.	Publish a Glen Eira News article
7. Provide an opportunity for all residents to be informed and to participate in town planning applications where they (and others) object.	Maintain both the non-statutory planning Conference (Council decision by resolution) and Delegated Planning Committee as forums for resident involvement in the town planning process.	Report on a quarterly basis the number of planning conferences and Delegated Planning Committee meetings held
8. Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.	Review the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) process and introduce process improvement which benefits all parties.	Trial a mediation process and report to Council on the results. Prove an information video which explains the DPC process for the benefit of residents involved
9. Ensure residents and ratepayers have access to simple and easy to use information about the Council town planning process, the responsibilities of developers and how to participate in the process.	Develop a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) factsheet on town planning processes and controls	FAQ fact sheet developed and posted on the Council website.
10. Undertake community consultation and engagement to ensure the Glen Eira Municipal Strategic Statement, Glen Eira Planning Scheme and town planning process meets the needs of local residents and ratepayers	Survey participants in the Delegated Planning Committee process and identify areas for improvement	Report survey results back to Council
11. Encourage environmentally sustainable design (ESD) for new buildings.	Produce a standard information kit for planning applications to define ESD and Water Sensitive Urban Design in developments	Information kit distributed and placed on council website

QUESTION #1: Do the listed Measures really ‘measure’ what the ‘action’ proposes?

We are bemused by the notion that merely listing the ‘number’ of applications can in any shape or form influence the nature of 1, 2, or 3 bedroom unit developments in our neighbourhoods.
Measures 1 and 3 are practically identical, and further, simple ‘reporting’ on the ‘number’ of assessments does not influence the outcome of those assessments.
When there are over 1200 applications per year ,and consistently growing, do 200 and even 300 ‘proactive’ inspections ensure sufficient supervision? Also, what if any action follows such inspections? For example: does Council pursue developers for infringements? How many? How often?
Measures 1, 2 and 3 are identical to those listed in the 2011/12 Action Plan – despite the increase in applications. Hence nothing has changed. The budget and Council Plan promise the maintaining of existing services. Keeping the same target does not meet this objective. More importantly, Council has failed to act in accordance with its own promises. THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN BOTH MINIMAL CHANGE AND HOUSING DIVERSITY HAS NEVER BEEN REPORTED. What has been provided in the Quarterly Reports are PERCENTAGES and even these do not provide any guidance on the NUMBERS for Housing Diversity versus Minimal Change.
Encouraging ‘community involvement’ in the planning process is admirable. However the Action relates to the Fast Track program and can hardly be said to apply to the vast majority of residents. The program is primarily geared to developers. Further an article in the Glen Eira News is hardly a convincing ‘measure’ of ‘support’.
Item 10 speaks of broad issues such as the MSS, and the Planning Scheme. The objective is to ensure that ‘it meets the needs’ of the community. But once again, the actions and measures employed to achieve this are meaningless – ie. a ‘survey’ of participants in the DPC and the ‘reporting’ of results. Readers may remember that this is really a blast from the past in that years ago, such surveys were conducted and were actually published in Council minutes.

QUESTION #2: Do any of these ‘actions’ and ‘measures’ solve the planning issues as repeatedly stated by residents?

Nothing new, or effective, has been done in relation to the Planning Scheme itself. The current situation remains. References to ‘transition policy’ refer to last year’s resolution where all ‘transition’ means is a greater setback for multiple storeys, rather than an actual ‘transition zone’ that takes in a specific area. Residents can therefore still find themselves living next to 3, 4 or even 5 stories if they happen to abut Housing Diversity Areas. The same may be said for the recent C87 decision to go to a Panel. The Amendment covers less than 3% of the municipality and both residents and councillors were never provided with the opportunity to submit their own recommendations or suggestions for inclusion in this overlay.
Information sheets are fine as far as they go. There already are plenty of ‘information sheets’ available on Council’s website. Will this just be more of the same?

CONCLUSIONS

There’s plenty more that we could say – but the post would be far too long. What’s particularly disappointing is that after all the hullaballoo about ‘consulting’ with the community and acknowledging the angst that inappropriate development is causing, this Action Plan does not deviate one iota in any meaningful sense from the set in concrete agenda of this council. The Planning scheme will only be tinkered with, and the essential questions as to the 80/20 divide, structure plans, height limits, public realm policies, etc. remain untouched. Perhaps in the end Council could have saved themselves mega-bucks rather than going through the charade of ‘intensive community consultation’ – especially when there was never any intention to actually do anything to remedy what residents see as intolerable.

May 5, 2012

How (Not) Green Is My Valley!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[19] Comments

There can be no doubt about it – green grass is taboo in Glen Eira – unless it’s a sporting oval! Otherwise it is becoming the concrete and mulch capital of the world! The latest atrocity concerns the Elster Creek Trail that we have commented upon previously. Readers will remember the Keystone incompetence such as:

Building concrete pathways on private land
Creating flood plains
Spending tens of thousands in ripping up hundreds of metres of grass and replacing it with ‘instant’ turf

Now we have the following:

Removal of perfectly sound wooden logs that function as barriers to entrances (and provide seating) and replacing these with low, environmentally unfriendly, (and ugly) concrete plinthing
The complete spreading of mulch everywhere so that not a blade of grass (including the thousands spent on the recent instant grass) is allowed to survive
Mulch that literally stinks to high heaven
Mulch that rests along private entrances as well as fence lines
Mulch that is up against tree trunks
Planting of countless gums less than 1.5m apart
Planting of gums where roots will undoubtedly be water logged
Ripping out flame trees planted less than 2 years ago to ensure a ‘straight line’ of 8 gums

We can only conjecture at the sheer waste, not to mention inconvenience to residents, that all this has cost. Given that this council is classified as ‘high risk’; that we are facing a ‘cash crisis’; that GESAC will continue to be a burden for at least the next decade, and that other major projects have been delayed and delayed (Duncan McKinnon; Booran Rd Reservoir) we cannot fathom the sheer profligacy of this administration. Yes, it’s great that new trees are planted. But how many will be nurtured, pruned regularly and actually survive? Yes, it’s great that trees are mulched – but does that mean that all grass has to be sacrificed instead of simply mulching near the base and circumference? Elster Creek Trail, from a pleasant, green and unobtrusive landscape has been turned into a stinking, concrete and mulch swamp! We invite councillors to come along and take a whiff – but please bring your face masks!

In time of course, the mulch will settle creating 3 to 4 inch drops off the path edges and thus creating a real risk to pedestrians and cyclists. Solution? More mulch! And when it rains, how much mulch will be swept into the drains as has already happened on a regular bases?

The photos below do not capture the current status. Most of the mulch has now been spread – so it is ‘goodbye grass’ and ‘hello stinking mulchville’!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

May 4, 2012

Budget: What We’ll Be Slugged!

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

Rate increase of 6.5% for 2012/13 and again NEXT YEAR

Rate increases for the past 8 years are:

2004/5 – 4%

2005/6 – 4.1%

2006/7 – 4%

2007/8 – 6.5%

2008/9 – 6.5%

2009/10 – 6.5%

2010/11 – 6.5%

2011/12 – 6.00%

2012/13 – 6.5%

TOTAL – 50.6% INCREASE IN 8 YEARS!

INCREASED CHARGES

240 litre bin charge up $50
120 litre bin charge up $20
240 litre family bin up $32
Childcare for 3-5 year olds, up $10 per day

We will comment in greater detail once we’ve had time to fully digest these documents.

May 3, 2012

At Long, Long, Long, Last!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

From Council’s website

GESAC Open Monday 7 May 2012

GESAC will open to the community from 6am Monday 7 May 2012.
The whole facility will be open. Details of programs and services are set out on the GESAC website www.gesac.com.au
“The certificate of occupancy was issued on Monday 30 April and the builder handed over the facility to Council on Wednesday 2 May. Council’s GESAC staff are to be congratulated on opening the facility within a few days of taking control of the site,” Chairman of the Pools Steering Committee Cr Michael Lipshutz said.
“For the first time, Glen Eira City Council will be offering all-year-round health and fitness facilities for the whole Community. GESAC will bring benefits to thousands of people for many years to come. Council would like to thank the Commonwealth and State Governments for their financial support for the project. Both Governments will be invited to take part in an official opening shortly,” Glen Eira Mayor Cr Jamie Hyams said.

May 3, 2012

More Mulch

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

Item 9.5 Leaf and Chipped Garden Waste

Penhalluriack left the room. Lipshutz moved and Magee seconded motion.

LIPSHUTZ: stated that this has been a ‘vexed issue for some time now’ and been dealt with by the Ombudsman. Said that Penhalluriack had raised the issue of legionella disease and potential risk to workers. Said that ‘we have a proper’ report that recommends ‘some safeguards which will protect’ users. Claimed that what the Arnold report does say is that ‘bacteria’ is ‘found in all sorts of’ gardens and waste. Went on to say that he personally was ‘not aware of any person contracting Legionnaires disease by using our mulch facility’. In these ‘circumstances it is appropriate’ to reopen the facility with the ‘safeguards as outlined’.

MAGEE: Said that last year he had no ‘hesitation’ in voting to close the facility because ‘there was a potential risk to members of our community’. But now after reading a lot more and ‘given the 6 recommendations’ by the Arnold report it was okay. Noted that there was also a letter from Arnold that came in April. Read from the letter where it was claimed that they tested ‘both the air and the mulch’ and that ‘legionella was not detected’. ‘I’m more than comfortable with that paragraph’ and together with the recommendations was happy to ‘reverse the decision I made’. Was now ‘confident’ that there isn’t any risk.

LOBO: began by referring to what he had said at last council meeting about the Ombudsman’s title to his report and that he was ‘misquoted by the local Glen Eira Debates’ blog. Reiterated that the title is ‘not a good reflection’ on councillors when it says that governance ‘involves each and every one of us’. Defined governance in terms of ‘processes’ and ‘procedures’ and ‘accountable’. Said that he believed that ‘as councillors we have done what we could’ so therefore the ombudsman’s title should have simply said ‘poor governance…..by a councillor’… ‘it should not be a reflection’ on others. Went on to say that as soon as councillors were aware following the O’Neill report they sent Penhalluriack off to a Code of Conduct Panel. ‘Painting everyone with the same brush was not appropriate’ and all this does is ‘show the over enthusiasm of the ombudsman’. Said that when he last raised the issue ‘I was criticised by Glen Eira Debates….(claimed not to be reading it) ‘regularly but I do go on it once a month’. There was the need for Glen Eira Debates to ‘be careful in information….particularly those (that write under) cover (of anonymity)….’they should be courageous enough to say who they are’ so that councillors could reply. Went on to say that when he ‘had the guts’ to show up at a recent community forum one ‘over enthusiastic resident’ attacked councillors who were ‘painted as useless’ and that the ‘community should get rid of all the councillors’….’ I don’t understand all this garbage’ and that Glen Eira Debates should think about the positive things that council is doing and not be ‘negative’.

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Magee that the recommendations were ‘competent’ and that ‘there will be no issue in the area’ and that there will be ‘more than a few residents’ who will be pleased with the reopening.

HYAMS: Said that the ‘first part’ of the motion is to note the ombudsman’s report ‘on these matters’. Agreed with Lobo’s comments that the title is ‘unfortunate and doesn’t reflect the contents of the report’ and also ‘endorsed’ Lobo’s comments on those ‘without the integrity to put their names to their criticisms’. They ‘hide behind anonymity’ and ‘cowardice’. The further letter from Noel Arnold ‘proves that contrary to much speculation’ the mulch was checked but that isn’t ‘an indication of whether the mulch facility causes a risk to health’ because there’s always ‘things in dirt’. Said that the ‘real test’ is checking the air and that was done. Officers ‘weren’t able to find’ any other location that was as good as Glen Huntly Park because of ‘the size of the car park’. Since the facility was closed there had been a lot of ‘feedback’ from people that it shouldn’t have been closed. Said that when he voted to close it his real concern was that ‘people may not handle it safely’, ‘but I guess there is only so much that you can do’ (so the recommendations and the debate would alert people. Also they might try and get it from other sites that don’t have these safety precautions).

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5 councillors with Pilling, Tang & Forge absent).

May 1, 2012

MRC Land Swap

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

A year has come and gone since the notorious ‘agreement’ between Council and the MRC and not one little peep of any substance from Lipshutz & co throughout this entire time. Not a word about the failure to adhere to the ‘conditions’ such as removal of fences or limiting the number of events. The Special Committee has not met or reported and neither has the Racecourse Advisory Committee – apart from the centre of the racecourse shemozzle.

So, has the MRC diligently been working on any of their promises? Have they successfully ‘beautified’ what was supposed to be a public park in the much heralded land swap with the State Government? Has the MRC in any shape or form fulfilled its end of the bargain? And what has our dear old Council been doing about any of this?

The slide show we present below shows the area designated as the land swap and its supposed rejuvenation into a fabulous open space/park area. Residents can see exactly how instead of a park, we have been granted something akin to a rubbish dump replete with overgrown and unkempt vegetation.

The silence from Council on any of these issues is deafening.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

April 30, 2012

Fudging The Facts Big Time!

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

Residents have every right to expect that information provided in council reports is accurate, comprehensive, and not a misrepresentation of the facts – or worse, ‘likely to deceive and mislead’. This is not the first time that we find VCAT reports presented to Council which do not adhere to these basic principles. We believe that the reason(s) for such doctored reports are:

To disguise inadequacies in council’s planning scheme
To disguise inadequacies in council’s presentations at vcat and planning officer decisions
To deflect criticism onto VCAT itself, rather than the shortcomings of Council

We illustrate the above with the recent VCAT decision on 14 Holloway Rd., Ormond. Council states:

ADDRESS	44 Holloway Rd., Ormond
Proposal	Construction of 2 double storey attached dwellings
Council Decision	Refusal (DPC)
VCAT Decision	Permit
APPELLANT	Furman Constructions (Applicant)

 The land is zoned Residential 1 and is located within a Minimal Change Area.

 The application was refused by the DPC as the development of the land would result in the removal of a mature Golden Elm located in the front setback of the site.

 Although the Tribunal recognised the Minimal Change Area Policy did support the retention of existing trees, the Tribunal considered that the tree had outgrown its setting and would be more appropriate if it was replaced with another tree after the land was developed.

 As a result of finding the tree could be removed, the Tribunal determined to direct a planning permit be granted.

Reading this, most people would simply think that the only sticking point was about a tree that ‘had outgrown’ its setting and that the Delegated Planning Committee was terribly concerned about maintaining the greenness of Glen Eira. The truth of the matter however reveals a totally different story and factors. We cite directly from the judgement which can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/309.html

“The planning scheme’s policies (clause 22.08, Minimal Change Area Policy) seek to retain the garden character of Glen Eira, which includes landscaping and trees as a major element in the appearance and character of its residential areas. Specific policy requires the retention of existing healthy and valued vegetation.

The Ormond precinct’s prevailing character elements include “well-established domestic gardens containing low and medium scale planting.”

7. The permit applicant provided Council with an independent arborist’s report, prepared by Mr David Sampson of P. S. Tree Care. Mr Bowden did not call Mr Sampson to give expert evidence. Mr Sampson has concluded that the Elm had been in decline for some years, that its vigour is diminished, it lacks sufficient vitality to maintain itself, has a poor structure and is prone to wood decay due to various surface lesions. He concluded that the tree should be removed and, further, that its removal “would not impact on the streetscape or any form of green infrastructure within the immediate area”.

8. Council’s Landscape Officer reviewed the P. S. Tree Care report, accepted its conclusions and agreed “that retention of the large Elm sited within the front setback is problematic” and had no objection to the tree’s removal.

In finding that the tree can be removed, I note the following points. Firstly, the tree has reached a size which in my view is quite out of scale with either the existing dwelling or the proposed new dwellings. The tree is unreasonably large for either its existing or intended setting and is of a scale that would be more appropriate to a park-like setting. Secondly, the dominant vegetation in the street is created by the reasonably sized, evergreen street trees. These are so dense that the Elm cannot be readily seen at close quarters, only in more distant views. Thirdly, I accept the view expressed by Mr Sampson and not contested by Council’s Landscape Officer that the tree is in somewhat poor condition and, by clear implication, has a somewhat reduced life expectancy.

I therefore find that there are overall advantages in relation to the longer-term neighbourhood and streetscape character in replacing the Elm with a more appropriately scaled, canopy-forming tree. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable for such a tree to be planted in a semi-mature form. That is a requirement that can be identified as part of the landscape plan”.

Council’s other contention (which is not mentioned in the VCAT report they produced) is “Council’s Delegated Planning Committee had concluded that … the proposed development will generally complement the neighbourhood character and will integrate well with the street, subject to the separation of the first floors (i.e. – providing a gap) to lessen visual bulk and mass impacts to the street (Parker Street) and to the adjoining property to the east.” The member’s conclusions on this are also worthy of citing –

“Council’s intention was that an observer should see that the two structures were clearly separated at first-floor level.

Mr Bowden submitted a plan that illustrated a 2-metre gap between the dwellings’ first floor levels, overlaid over the proposed 1.5 metre deep recess. He thereby sought to demonstrate that the visual break of the 2 metre, full-depth gap would, as seen from the street, be so little different to the proposed deep recess as to not justify the inconvenience that would be caused to the internal room layouts.

18. I accept Mr Bowden’s submission on this point. A 2-metre gap would only be discernible as such from within a very short length of Parker Street, immediately adjoining. I find that the presumed benefits of the proposed gap in terms of the perceived scale of the whole building mass, as compared to the effect of the proposed deep recess, would be marginal at best. In effect, I find that Council’s that a full-depth, 2-metre wide gap would not “lessen visual bulk and mass impacts to the street (Parker Street)” to any significant or useful degree.

With respect to the proposal’s southern interface, the boundary setbacks of the southern two-story wall vary between about 2.2 and 2.3 metres. Mr Bowden submitted, and Mr Bromley did not dispute, that the setbacks more than satisfy Standard B17 of clause 55.04 – 1 of the planning scheme and therefore the related objective^.

I accept Mr Bowden’s submission and find that council’s contentions cannot be supported in relation to the provision of the gap between the first-floor sections. Likewise, if the building’s setback from the southern boundary meets the relevant objective of clause 55, then there is no justification for requiring additional setback”.

COMMENTS

Once again, it appears that instead of honest and full reporting to councillors and community, we are subjected to nothing more than public relations exercises determined to either disguise the inadequacy of council’s policies, planning officer recommendations, and/or performance at VCAT. In itself, this one instance may be viewed as relatively minor. However, when it happens time and time again, then it is definitely not a ‘clerical error’ but a deliberate campaign of subterfuge and obfuscation to the detriment of open and accountable government.

April 30, 2012

Caulfield Park Depot

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

Item 9.7 centres on the suspect Lipshutz Request for a Report on the removal of the Caulfield Park Depot. We remind readers of the Pilling email which clearly revealed how in breach of council’s own resolution this request was. Now we have the Officers’ report which of course says nothing, so that the status quo remains. We also note that there is no name attached to this report so there is no accountability or responsibility. Another frequent and handy ploy of this administration!

The report states that “The Caulfield Park master plan adopted by Council some years ago was premised at that time on the depot remaining where it is”. So what? Not stated is that the Master Plan dates back to the dark ages and when it suits has been changed and altered and massaged according to new circumstances – ie. concrete pathways; ‘realigning’ of ovals’; fences and now the latest craze, concrete plinthing.

The argument for non-removal then continues with an exposition of the multi-function purpose of the current depot and concludes with the simple sentences “There are few areas within Glen Eira which lend themselves to these uses. It would be undesirable to relocate the depot from one park to another park or to any other site which was capable of being used as public open space”. Note the admission that there is at least a ‘few areas’ that might be suitable. Of course, none of this is elaborated upon!

The real intended killer blow is: “Officers have previously advised Councillors of an estimated cost of not less than $3m. It is not possible to be more specific until a new site is identified and the nature of redevelopment of the existing site is known”. Surely it would not have been too difficult if there are a ‘few areas’ suitable, for some ‘specifics’ to be included for these sites at least?

Thus, in the space of one and a half pages an issue that has been of major concern for nigh on forever is thus sidelined again – indefinitely!

We urge readers to note:

The total lack of any financial/geographic details
No documentation as to which sites have been investigated
No detail as to why any of these alternate sites are unsuitable
No detail as to the arrived figure of $3 million

We can only conclude that not only is the report totally substandard, but its usefulness for any responsible decision making by councillors is non existent. We believe that this is the ultimate objective anyway – ie to do nothing but create the illusion that there has at least been the attempt to solve a festering problem and councillors, especially Lipshutz, can then proclaim to his electorate – “look, I’ve tried’. In the end, it all depends on the gullibility and/or integrity of councillors as to whether they will accept this continual manipulation.

PS: Following several comments re the MRC’s failure to put up the fence as per the ‘agreement’, we’ve received a photo of the site taken exactly one year since the signing of the ‘agreement’ (27th April). As many residents suspected, such agreements obviously aren’t worth the paper they’re written on! The weeds certainly do add a nice touch as well!

April 27, 2012

Move Over Sir Humphrey!

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

GESAC

We report that:

Once again no Pools Steering Committee report – even though this group are meant to meet every month and keep councillors informed as to progress
Of the 5 Records of Assembly (ranging over a month) GESAC is mentioned ONCE!
Council is still losing money hand over fist. The Financial Report lists revenue loss as now standing at $1.93 million due to the delay.
Also of significance is the nearly $4 million that capital works is behind schedule. Maybe the principle at work here is: don’t spend what you promised to spend because that would drive the liquidity ratio well below the danger level of 1! Hang on to the money for as long as you can and use this to artificially boost the cash base.

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

5 records of assembly are provided. We have to again question the accuracy and/or selective nature of these ‘records’. Lipshutz does not rate a mention once – it’s like he doesn’t exist. Either he is not doing his job by raising issues, or those issues simply aren’t reported. We certainly do not believe that he sits in these meetings totally mute. That then raises the question of how slanted these various records of assembly are.

We’ve gone through these and noted the number of times that individual councillors get a mention (apart from the declarations of interest). It’s therefore fascinating as to what is put in and what is left out and the bigger question of WHO DECIDES – especially when we’re told that the meeting adjourned and reassembled but only councillors are listed. Does this mean that officers departed? If they didn’t, then why aren’t they listed as present? If they did leave then who took the minutes? Was it an independent note-taker as recommended by the Municipal Inspector?

The individual councillor mentions are:

Penhalluriack – 17

Hyams – 7

Magee – 5

Lobo – 4

Forge – 7

Pilling 1

Tang 3

Esakoff was absent for all meetings; Pilling was absent for 1.

Readers are free to draw their own conclusions as to what this signifies. However, it should raise alarm bells as to the possible distortion(s) that these ‘records’ might represent.

C87

Overall recommendation is to go to a Planning Panel. However, the convoluted logic is worthy of highlighting. Apparently there were 59 submissions. Some favoured the Amendment, others opposed. What is important is that of these 59,

“27 submitters support the intent of the amendment but are “objecting” because their properties have not been included in the amendment”.

Since council did not INVITE comments from the community in preparing this amendment nor determining which areas are worthy of greater protection, they now turn around and argue – “This category of submissions request changes which go beyond the scope of this amendment in the form it was exhibited to the community. Any property that was not included as part of the exhibited amendment cannot now be included in this amendment.”

This somewhat patronising advice is then offered to those 27 submitters – “The suggested way forward for this category of submitters is to encourage them to put their views to the independent panel. The panel may, through their reported recommendations to Council, come to the view that some properties, not currently part of the amendment, are nonetheless worthy of NCO or DDO protection. It would then be open to Council to consider a new amendment process to include these properties.”

In other words, tough luck! We believe that the chances of the Panel investigating something outside their terms of reference is zero! Another Amendment must be devised, advertised, calls for submissions, Ministerial approval, etc. etc. As Hyams is so fond of saying, this could take years!

Our conclusion? Another tinkering with the edges of the planning scheme to deliver pre-determined outcomes that have deliberately excluded consideration of the majority of areas within Glen Eira. This is Sir Humphrey at his absolute best!

MULCH

Finally, there’s the recommendation to re-install the mulch facility exactly where it’s been – Glen Huntly. Residents are expected to believe that there is absolutely no other area within Glen Eira that could accommodate this facility and that relocation would probably cost $3 million!

We’ll comment on this in far greater detail in the days ahead.

April 26, 2012

‘Development’ Or More Waste?

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

From Council’s website –

Glen Eira City Council is currently finalising a proposed play space project at Murrumbeena Park on Kangaroo Road.

The proposal sees the removal of the existing playground adjacent to the main sports oval and the creation of a new play space in the eastern side of the park. The design incorporates a number of leading edge components and treatments which will make the playspace a model for future developments.

The design goes beyond any existing playground and merges traditional play equipment with interactive landscaping, family picnic areas, tree plantings and facilities. It provides areas from toddlers to more active adolescents and can be accessed by wheelchairs and prams.

In January, the Victorian Government announced a grant of $258,921 to assist in the construction of the Murrumbeena play space as part of Sport and Recreation Victoria’s Community Facility Funding Program.

The project is listed as an item for consideration as part of Council’s 2012–13 Budget.

An opportunity to view the plans will be available at Murrumbeena Park Pavilion, Kangaroo Road on Thursday 24 May from 6.30pm to7.30pm. This will include a brief presentation by the play space designer and Council officers will be available to clarify any issues and answer any questions.

If you require further information, contact Council’s Service Centre on 9524 3333 or email recservices@gleneira.vic.gov.au

COMMENTS

What has happened to ‘community consultation’ re the design? One hour will definitely give residents ample opportunity to view and comment on the design, won’t it? Could it possibly be that after the fiasco of Packer Park the decision was NOT TO ENGAGE with the community and seek feedback?
No mention of the $700,000 that will come of ratepayers’ pockets!
Why are all designs produced by this council so ‘cartoonish’ and lacking in detail?
Risk management would certainly be an issue with this design given that the goal posts sit practically on the edge of the path/play areas. Will this mean that kiddies have to dodge footballs, soccer balls, etc? Or will council suddenly decide that they have to ‘relocate’ the sporting grounds at the cost of mega bucks? Or will we now have a 20 foot wire mesh fence to cordon off the sporting oval from the ‘development’?
Why are we spending $1,000,000 when this council has been classified as ‘high risk’ and we are facing a ‘cash crisis’ and a playground is already in existence at the park?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates