GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 13, 2012

Customer Service Or Merely Plugging The Holes?

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

Another email from our disgruntled Rowan St. resident –

“Good afternoon Jamie- I’ve just received in the mail a Notice from GE Council that Road Works (road profiling & new asphalt) will be undertaken in Rowan Street Elsternwick (but just between Shoobra & Orrong Rods)- interestingly not in Rowan Street over Orrong Rd.

I would like to know how much this will cost ratepayers. Also I would like to know how much the ‘Keep Left Roundabout sign’ cost to erect? If you recall I reported the incident where the sign was totally flattened by a speeding driver (because there are no speed limit signs or any other deterrent for drivers to stop them driving at speeds they wish!).

The fact Council is doing the road works is astounding me – where is the rationale for this action, and how will this action improve road safety for local residents, other pedestrians & pets?

In fact this situation presents a great opportunity for Council to actually put in (at the same time some key safety measures in this stretch of Rowan Street, for example, expanding the boundary of the roundabout to ensure drivers slow down at that point, or erecting one speed hump at the downward slope in the street towards Orriong Rd, or erecting speed limit sign & CHEAPER for ratepayers as you are already doing works here!). Any one of these measures would have demonstrated a Council that is strategic, thinks broadly & spends ratepayers $s cost effectively, instead of adhoc, piecemeal & with disregard for spending ratepayers $s wisely, as this action actually shows.

In fact it probably would have been cheaper by now for Council to have erected one speed hump than have to replace the above mentioned sign.

What is needed is measures that slow down traffic in local streets, not improving the surface so that cars can travel as fast as they wish.

I look forward to your reply to the questions I posed above, at the earliest opportunity.

I note I have not received any response from you to my other 2 emails. Please advise when I can expect to receive your response to these?

Thanks,

March 9, 2012

Residents – Always The Last To Know!

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

We’ve received the following email and attachment from a resident –

“NOT GOOD ENOUGH

“The Caravan Industry Australia wishes to keep you fully informed of short-term road closures during the upcoming 2012 Caravan and Camping Show” has today (9th March) appeared in impacted residents letter boxes. Notification the day before does not constitute being “fully informed” and who the heck gave these people the right to limit my access to my property. During last year’s Spring Racing Carnival, the MRC pulled the same stunt, with one days notice. Calls to Council complaining resulted in Council denying all knowledge of the closures. About two weeks later, Council sent out a survey to local residents. None of the results of that survey have been announced or reported back to residents. Council is responsible for managing traffic movements and street closures in Glen Eira – Council has a traffic management department for this purpose.

So why isn’t there a published traffic management plan for major events at Caulfield Racecourse
Why haven’t impacted residents be allowed to review and comment (we know our streets better than anyone)
Why is any Tom Dick or Harry allowed to close off my street
Why is the closure notice presented the day before (these events are well known before hand and have had months of planning).
Will Council enforce the parking restrictions in the surrounding residential streets?

Council is definitely failing residents in this instance.”

The flyer is uploaded HERE

March 8, 2012

Hyams: Continuing The Do Nothing Tradition

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

We’ve previously posted on the total dissatisfaction of residents with a recent Planning Conference chaired in court room style by Lipshutz. The following emails are the follow up from this event. We draw readers’ attention to these salient points:

Not one single concern raised by this resident has been answered by Hyams
The spin is offensive, especially council’s reference to ‘resolution’ and ‘facilitation’
The entire process is offensive and slanted in the developer’s favour
Council does nothing to assist residents

Here are the three emails.

“Extract below is from the Glen Eira Council’s website.

What is the purpose of the planning conference?

To ensure all parties have a clear and accurate understanding of the proposal;
To provide an opportunity for all parties to express their views in respect to the proposal;
To allow the community to air their views and concerns about a development proposal;
To facilitate an understanding of the matters/issues which are in contention; and
Where possible, attempt to resolve or reduce the issues in dispute.

The planning conference on 22 Feb 2012, for development at (address deleted) did not follow the above as set by the Council. After 3 residents had spoken, the rest of the objectors were snubbed by the moderator and were not allowed to express their views in a fair manner. We are all civilised residents of Glen Eira and had a fair reason to be there. The moderator, (Lipshutz) conducted the forum like a courtroom proceeding. It should be clarified within the purpose of the planning conference that discussions are not permitted.

There was no attempt by the planning rep or the developer’s rep to answer any questions about issues. The council’s planning rep could not even define medium density. Is it an interpretation that works in favour of the developer?

Objectors were not permitted to ask a question of the developer’s rep. The meeting was concluded abruptly and residents have no way of knowing how the issues raised will be resolved. We came away from the meeting no more satisfied than before we went in.

The next step I believe is the voting on 20 March. In the interim, residents know nothing till it goes to vote. You call this system of listening to objections fair? In order to do that, you need a neutral moderator and some allowance for discussion. Otherwise, you are wasting the residents’ time.

If that was the only opportunity for the residents to get answers and clarifications, the entire process was less than satisfactory

Thank you

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

Mayor Hyams responded:

Dear (name deleted)

Prior to the matter going to a vote, residents will have the opportunity to see our planning officer’s recommendation. This will be part of the agenda for the Council meeting, which will be available online or from our libraries from around noon the previous Friday. Residents may also contact councillors at any time to express their views about the application, and, once the agenda becomes available, about the recommendation.

Regards,

Jamie

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

Here is the resident’s answer to this missive:

Dear Jamie

Thank you for your response. I pleased to know that there will be an opportunity to see the recommendations made by the planning officer on Friday 16^th March. If the matter is being voted on the 20^th March, it leaves the objectors with a day to discuss further, if permitted! What is the procedure should the residents have objections to the recommendations?

There is a strong sense of disgruntlement amongst residents regarding transparency and clarity on part of planning officers. Particularly when they cannot define medium density. Most importantly, have any of the planning officers on the case of (address deleted) development actually visited the street? Are decisions made on the basis of drawings alone? If that is the case, the drawings for this project represent nothing of the street’s character. It is of utmost importance that planning officers get a look and feel of the streets that plans are being submitted for and get in touch with reality.

It was requested at the conference that a proper independent traffic survey be conducted by the Council for (name deleted) Street, as the one provided by Urbis was not a true representation. So far the residents have seen nothing. Conducting a traffic survey for a couple of hours for a development which will have high impact on the street infrastructure is not adequate. We have called up the company that conducted the survey for Urbis/Vujic, however, they declined to comment or offer general advice as they were working with the developer and it would be conflict of interest. Other companies that conduct such surveys also were unhelpful due to conflict of interest!

The Planning Process is less than satisfactory and something that the council must review. For a proposal of such nature, the planning officers should have tossed it out at the pre application planning meeting. It beggars belief about the planning departments transparency.

Thank you

March 8, 2012

A Little Arithmetic

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

We freely admit to a growing sense of frustration every time Lipshutz states that GESAC is ‘progressing well’ and ‘on budget’. It’s laughable because the ‘budget’ has undoubtedly been blown out of the water countless times already. We also freely admit that the following is mere supposition. It has to be, given that this Council has steadfastly refused to provide real facts and figures on GESAC. We know so very little about the expenses, about the costs, about revenue losses. The bottom line in all of this is a mystery. However, we like mysteries and present the following figures – simply as a guide. We stand to be corrected and we’ve undoubtedly left out much simply because Council has left out much in its disclosures to the most important people – us – the ones who are paying all the bills.

Here’s what we do know:

Vic Roads demanded that ALL the costs for the installation of the traffic lights in East Boundary Rd., plus all the necessary re-routing be paid for by Council. We estimate on very old figures that traffic lights are in the vicinity of $150,000. Add to this roads, pavements, landscaping, etc. and it’s feasible to suggest another $300,000 to $400,000. We are also willing to bet, that this figures isn’t included under GESAC CONSTRUCTION. Rather it is more likely to be camouflaged under ‘roads, drains’ etc. We maintain however that if this council was fair dinkum, that the cost should be directly attributed and counted into the GESAC BUDGET.
$450,000 for car park extension
$391,000 for playground ‘relocation’
$1,820,000 on interest repayments for one year
$330,000 for outfitting a café
Speed humps galore along neighbouring streets. Estimated at $16,000 per speed hump which would equal close to another $50,000 – should also be included under GESAC construction
50 additional staff. Let’s be conservative and say that most would be part time and hence around $20,000p.a. That’s another million at least!
$760,000 hire purchase agreement for 4 years – making it $190,000 per year
Cardio equipment at $277,000 for 4 years – thus approx. $70,000 per year
$100,000 ‘promotional materials’
$60,000 chemical costs
$47,000 printing and stationery
$72,000 ‘referee’ payments
$95,000 GESAC software
$1,653,000 furniture & fittings
$49,000 – Pool vacuum and two way radios

These are just some of the things that we do know from the proposed budget and recent events. What still has not surfaced are the following facts and figures:

How much will heating/cooling cost?
How much will cleaning cost?
How much will lawyers ultimately cost – especially if Hansen & Yuncken don’t play ball?
How much will general maintenance cost?
How much will water cost?
How much revenue has been lost due to delay in opening?
How much revenue has been lost if basketball courts are not fully utilised by Warriors? And for how long will this continue and will ratepayers fork out the bills?
How much will lighting cost?
How much did relocation of electric power station cost?
How much did consultants cost, not to mention staff time?
How much did relocation of historical society cost?
Will tenants sue for lost revenue? How much will this cost?
Will tenants’ rent really cover costs?
What’s the cost of insurance?

There are probably scores of other items that we’ve neglected to list. This is only a start! It’s definitely time that Council stopped calling this a $41.2 million dollar project. That sum is ONLY FOR CONSTRUCTION. It does not account for anything else! The total amount is astronomical. Now if this Council was a true believer in transparency, residents would have all of these figures at their finger tips. Councillors probably would as well – which we doubt they have!

The most crucial question though is: If projects had gone ahead on time (ie McKinnon grandstand/pavilion as previously noted on Neil Pilling’s blog) what would this do to cash flow and liquidity base? Maybe that’s our answer as to why so many things are so delayed? No wonder the Auditor General declared that Glen Eira is ‘high risk’.

March 7, 2012

GESAC: April, May, June…..?

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

At last Tuesday’s council meeting the magical word APRIL was used by Lipshutz for the very first time as to the potential opening of GESAC. The usual spin featured in his report on the Pools Steering Committee. We were again told that everything is ‘on budget’ and ‘progressing well’. Council is of course, ‘disappointed’ that the opening is now at least 4 months late, but as usual that’s ‘no fault of ours’ only the builder’s but Council is ‘taking action’ via its liquidated damages. Lipshutz ended by hoping that the pool will be open ‘for the basketball season’.

Again we highlight the lack of substance in this so called ‘report’; the staggering claim that GESAC is ‘on budget’ despite no income for 4 months – just expenses. We also maintain that such spin is an insult to the intelligence of ratepayers since only the most gullible or imbecilic would believe a single word of this propaganda. When oh when will this council actually come clean and provide residents with the truth as to the full financials of this project?

One thing however has been successfully completed – the chopping in half of Bailey Reserve for the car park extension and the relocation of the playground. Extra unbudgeted cost – just under $1,000,000. The image below captures the full horror as of February 15th.

March 6, 2012

Common Sense: Wherefore Art Thou?

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

Lash out on Bentleigh bike lanes

6 Mar 12 @ 05:00am by Donna Carton

Cyclist Carolyn Priest comes across a car parked in the bicycle lane on Brewer Rd. Picture: JASON SAMMON

GLEN Eira Council has spent $65,000 painting bike lanes on roads with legal kerbside parking. The 4.5km of new lanes in Bentleigh have been branded a joke by some cyclists who can’t ride in them because parked cars block their way.

The council said it had no plans to make the lanes on McKinnon and Brewer roads clearways for riders.

Carolyn Atkinson, whose husband and son-in-law are regular cyclists, said Glen Eira council had wasted ratepayers’ money on the project. “I saw them painting the line and at first thought it was a parking bay. “Then they painted in the little bike symbol and I just laughed,” Ms Atkinson said. “There is no room to cycle around the parked cars. Why did they bother?”

Council spokesman Paul Burke said the lanes were recommended as high priorities in the Glen Eira Bicycle Strategy 2010. “The recommendations noted that where there is limited road width, bicycle lanes which can be parked over may be necessary and are probably the most feasible option,” Mr Burke said.

Glen Eira Bicycle Users Group member Carolyn Priest believes the lanes are “better than nothing”. “On stretches where no-one is parked (cyclists) can move back into the lane,” she said.

Jason den Hollander, of Bicycle Network Victoria, said while Glen Eira council’s money could have been better used in this instance. “They should have put a cycle lane on both sides of the road, and allowed parking on one side,” he said.”

COMMENT: Identical problems occur on McKinnon Rd where, apart from bicycle lanes, three sets of rubberised speed humps have been installed over a distance of 400 metres. Residents were first informed of the creation of the bicycle lanes via letter. This obviously constituted ‘consultation’. One elderly resident took the time and trouble to write back claiming that McKinnon Rd was entirely unsuitable because of width and gradient. The response was that Council had determined that McKinnon Rd was ‘perfect’ since it was ‘flat’. So that’s why this section is called McKINNON HILL!

As a consequence of such ‘improvements’, we wonder if Council has bothered to investigate the new RAT RUNS that have now been created by motorists attempting to bypass McKinnon and Brewer Rds via the quiet residential streets running off these major roads? With the imminent prospect of Centre Rd adopting the 40k speed limit, Bentleigh and McKinnon residents have much to look forward to!

March 5, 2012

Trust Me – I’m An Officer II

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

Above is the belated (4 month!) response from Transport Planning signed (illegible) on behalf of Cr. Forge. Residents should carefully note the range of ‘excuses’ for doing absolutely nothing and the validity/credibility of such responses. In particular:

Opening paragraph does not address the issue at all, although it does emphasise the importance of ‘safety’ – but this is only relevant it seems for Glen Huntly Rd. and not the side streets leading off the arterial road.
There is no quantification of anything. The inclusion of the phrase ‘even if an increase in traffic volume’ is remarkable. In other words, Council has got absolutely no idea about the impact of their decision making. Further, exactly what does ‘relatively low’ mean? Relative to what?
What does ‘based on current conditions’ mean? Is the classification of Rowan St. at 421^st on the ‘priority list’ the figure determined PRIOR to the introduction of the 40k zone in Glen Huntly Rd, or following the introduction of this speed limit?
It’s extremely kind of council to reiterate what the current speed laws and limits are – but the conclusion that there are ‘no plans’ to do anything certainly does not follow logically from this opening sentence. Further, just because the ‘vast majority’ of cars are travelling below the legal speed limit, means that a sizeable minority ARE NOT and therefore constitute a safety issue.
The offer of a ‘detection trailer’ is indeed magnanimous, but what does it achieve? Has council ever bothered to find out whether these trailers in fact achieve their stated objective? Do they result in decreased speed limits? Where is the evidence?
The removal of two concrete lids is irrelevant to the complaint. Is this supposed to suggest ‘hey look, we’re at least doing something’? All it’s confirming is that the concrete lids have been smashed time and time again so council are now finally not relying on concrete but attempting some remedial and long overdue action. But it’s got nothing to do with the central issue and nor has ‘road patching’. In fact, perhaps the best solution to this problem would be do nothing – if the road isn’t patched and is full of pot holes this could well be the most effective deterrent for both speeding traffic and traffic in general. Surely such an idea should appeal to a ‘do nothing’ council!

March 4, 2012

Trust Me – I’m An Officer!

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

In this big bad ugly world of bureaucracy, it’s incredibly difficult to know what and whom to believe – especially if contradictory advice is given by the same source! We just have to wonder why one individual is told ‘no it can’t be done’ and another individual is given an official order to do exactly what individual one wanted done! Are great big porkies being told? – or is this just another example of sheer bureaucratic bastardry, or we simply can’t be bothered doing anything about your case? What’s particularly disappointing about this whole set of circumstances is that poor old Neil Pilling, and Forge in recent times, have had their names attached to these formal letters without we presume any questioning. Here’s what we’ve learnt.

A resident from a local walking group wrote off to council complaining about fences on a property that obscured sightlines and hence were unsafe for pedestrians and traffic. The response from council with Pilling’s name attached said in part: “Following an inspection of the subject site, it was noted that sightlines for motorists exiting the ROW are obscured by the high fence at (address deleted)….In order to substantially improve sight lines between motorists and pedestrians, the subject fence needs to be splayed. However, as this property is already developed, Council cannot require the owners of this property to lower their fence at this stage”.

So, we’re told that there’s nothing that good ol’ Glen Eira Council can do until there is another ‘redevelopment’. Tough luck for pedestrians, kids riding cycles, and motorists. It’s very strange then, that ON THE EXACT SAME DAY THAT THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN, we have another letter, signed by John Bordignon and written to a different resident. In this case, after years of the house being completed, the resident was officially ordered to:

“demolish and remove the illegal building work, being the section of fencing from the eastern and western timber paling fences, within three metres of the street alignment to a maximum height of 1.5 metres from natural ground level in accordance with the Building Regulations 2006”.

They were given 30 days to comply with this order! We also note that the Building Act, 1993 at Section 106(d) states: “the building, land or place or building work on the building, land or place is a danger to the life, safety or health of any member of the public or of any person using the building, land or place or to any property” then an order may be issued. This surely belies the advice given to Resident 1 and is more reprehensible since there is an admission that ‘sightlines’ are obscured and hence logically, create an unsafe environment.

COMMENT

How on earth can two contradictory statements be made about an identical issue? Is this nothing more than an attempt by this council to fob off a resident’s legitimate concerns by resorting to what can only be interpreted as a blatant untruth? Or again, is this just mere incompetence or plain old sloth – we just can’t be bothered? Perhaps it’s even bureaucracy deciding to flex its muscles because the second resident decided to seek legal advice? As we’ve stated before, such incidents do nothing to endear this bureaucracy to residents and certainly destroy any faith that anyone should have in their pronouncements, professionalism and actions. In permitting their names to be attached to such letters, councillors are complicit in these untruths and they are the ones who end up carrying the can – not those who are, and should be held responsible.

March 3, 2012

Another Happy Customer!

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

We’ve received the following email:

“Hi- I’ve perused your GE Debates website & noted that while all the topics are very pertinent to residents, I noticed that there seems to be little discussion of Council’s non existent traffic management in the City of Glen Eira particuarly in and around local streets surrounding main shopping strip roads (particularly in Elsternwick, Glenhuntly Road shopping strip).

Since the introduction in 2011 of 40kmph speed limit Mon to Sat (reduced from 60kmph) in Glenhuntly Road, the local side streets have been inundated with cars trying to escape the slower speed limit, creating RAT RUNS & creating danger for pedestrians, kids & pets. In fact there have been 2 cats killed (our beloved pets) by speeding cars on Rowan street in 2011.

A recent traffic survey conducted by Council at my request in Rowan Street Elsternwick showed the traffic volumes had increased from 900 to 1400 per week & approx 20% of these cars were speeding (above the required 50kmph). Council however has refused to take any action to implement safety measures…(anything would do- e.g. speed limit signage (50kmph), no left turn at certain designated peak AM & PM times, one speed hump, etc).

I have an FOI currently with Council seeking data & information and criteria for setting of priorities & decision making, as well as budget & expenditure over the past 3 years on local street road safety measures implemented.

I have sought the assistance of my local councillor Cheryl Forge, who has been inept completely & instead of remaining independent & helping her constituents, seems to have sided with the Council traffic engineering department, as I have received (only 4 months late) a response she signed that is almost word for word the same as the Council traffic department’s initial response. How disappointing!!!!

I think the traffic management issues are seriously neglected in the city & Council is not complying with good traffic management practices legislation or keeping up with practices seen in comparable inner city councils (e./g. Stonnington, Port Phillip, etc)

There is a definite problem in the local streets. I’m sending you photos of ‘Keep left give way sign on the roundabout) that was driven over last weekend, (by a 4 wheel drive no doubt).

I’m wondering if you could post this comment (in its entirety or edited if deemed too long) on your website & invite comments from other residents. I’d be interested in their views and also what action we residents could collectively take to pressure this incompetent Council to take action to make our local streets safer. At the very least, the speed limit should be reduced in local streets to 40kmph to align with the main roads! How illogical is it to have higher speed limits in local residential streets than in the main roads!!!

Thanks in advance

March 2, 2012

What Very, Very, VERY Expensive Games We Play!

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

From the minutes of 28th February 2012.

OUTCOME OF CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Item 10 Urgent Business

Crs Hyams/Tang

That a matter relating to the VCAT matter between Council and Cr Penhalluriack be considered as an item of Urgent Business.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

(a) Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

1. That Council place on the public record the resolution for Item 12.5 of the Ordinary Council Meeting of November 2, 2011, relating to a Councillor Conduct Panel, other than paragraph 5 which relates to legal advice, and all attachments.

2. That the following facts be placed on the public record:

As a result of concerns that some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff may cause Council to be in breach of its occupational health and safety obligations to provide a safe work place, Council unanimously resolved to engage a solicitor with expertise in occupational health and safety to investigate these concerns.
As a summary of the investigation report records, some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff was inappropriate. The summary recommended, among other things, that Councillor Penhalluriack be referred to a Councillor Conduct Panel to review his behaviour towards officers, his conduct during the investigation with respect to confidentiality and his compliance with clauses 4.5, 5.2, 5.9 and 5.12 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.
Councillor Penhalluriack participated in various Council discussions and determinations in relation to the above matters. Councillors believed that this conduct breached the conflict of interest provisions of the Local Government Act. Those councillors present therefore unanimously resolved, at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 2 November 2011, to make an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel and to seek a finding of misconduct against Councillor Penhalluriack for these alleged breaches.
Councillor Penhalluriack denies these allegations and exercised his right to refer the matter to VCAT for determination. While Councillor Esakoff, as then mayor, was appointed as Council’s representative for the purposes of the Councillor Conduct Panel and in accordance with the legislation that states that the applicant must be a councillor or councillors, once the matter was referred to VCAT, it was possible, and therefore appropriate, that Glen Eira City Council be named as the applicant.

That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this Meeting.

9.45pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Chamber.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 2011

Item 12.5

LEGAL ADVICE COUNCILLOR CONDUCT PANEL

Enquiries: Peter Jones

Director Community Services

This item is confidential pursuant to s 89(2) (f) “legal advice”, and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” of the Local Government Act 1989.

10.45PM The CEO and Cr Penhalluriack left the Chamber.

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

1. That Council make an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel under section 81B(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 in respect of the conduct of Councillor Penhalluriack for alleged breaches of Councils code of Conduct and the Local Government Act in the form generally of the attached application. (Attachment 1 Application for the establishment of a Councillor Conduct Panel)

2. That Council seek a finding of misconduct against Cr. Penhalluriack.

3. That Council record that its internal dispute resolution process does not apply to this situation and that the matters are incapable of being resolved internally.

4. That Councillor Margaret Esakoff be appointed as Council’s representative for the purposes of the application to the Councillor Conduct Panel.

5. REDACTED.

REDACTED

AMENDMENT

Crs Hyams/Forge

Except that all references to a failure to declare a conflict of interest in relation to the mulch facility be removed from the application for the establishment of a Councillor Conduct Panel.

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.

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

Item 12.1

Crs Lipshutz/Pilling

That Council:

i) Note the Elster Creek Trail, including part of the shared path, encroaches onto the title of properties at 14 and 16 Hopkins Street, McKinnon.

ii) Note that the owners of 14 Hopkins Street intend to erect a new fence on the rear title boundary of this property.

iii) Note the owners of 16 Hopkins Street have applied to Council for a Town Planning Permit to subdivide this property into three lots including a lot along the rear. Further, that the owner agrees to gift the rear lot to Council to create a 1.5 metre buffer between the shared path and private property.

iv) Subject to approving the Town Planning Permit for the subdivision of 16 Hopkins Street, agrees to pay the owner all reasonable costs to prepare necessary plans and transfer the rear lot to Council.

v) Advise the owners of 14 and 16 Hopkins Street of Council’s decision including thanking the owners of 16 Hopkins Street for agreeing to gift the rear lot to Council.

vi) Incorporate this resolution in the public section of these minutes.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates