GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

February 24, 2012

Agenda: More Smoke & Mirrors

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

For all those residents who want a clear understanding of how the Glen Eira bureaucracy works to obfuscate issues, hide the truth, contain (deliberate?) inaccuracies, and befuddle councillors with nonsense, then the agenda items for the upcoming council meeting are the perfect example. We’ll go through these one by one.

FLOODS, DRAINS AND ‘IMPERVIOUS SURFACES’

The Environmental Advisory Committee has been contemplating the need to do something about the amount of ‘impervious surfaces’ allowed on new developments.  Four months later, there is finally a ‘report’ written by Jeff Akehurst. True to form (ie. ESD design) the general gist of the argument goes– ‘let’s advocate to state government because we really don’t want each municipality to have its own set of rules and regulations, and of course Glen Eira Council has already got in place its own ‘existing tools’ to deal with this problem.” The only concession is that the Council will ‘advocate’ to government to allow them to reduce the current 80% limit – but only in MINIMAL CHANGE AREAS!! Tough luck if you happen to live in the majority of HOUSING DIVERSITY! Here are some wonderful quotes from this “report”.

“It is acknowledged that impervious surfaces and water run-off are important issues but it is considered preferable that they are managed in a more broad and uniform way rather than differently by each municipality. It follows that State initiated controls are favoured.”

“…as an interim measure only, an “Impervious Surface and Storm Water Practice Note” could be developed.”

“If policy is regarded as too onerous by the development industry, it will be challenged and most likely successfully challenged through the VCAT process.”

“A further policy limitation is the time it takes to amend the planning scheme to incorporate new policy. It could take years and ultimately there is a risk it may never be approved by the Minister.”

“Any policy, procedure or practice note to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces or retain water on site is not a long term substitute to upgrading the drainage system.”

Overall solutions recommended – an ‘information kit’; advocate for only Minimal Change Areas.

GESAC: POOLS STEERING COMMITTEE (9th February)

Most of this contains the Lipshutz ‘statement’ that’s on the GESAC webpage. However, under the heading of ‘cash flow’ we find: “The actual forecast reflects that the project is behind schedule and that council has levied significant Liquidated Damages due to delays”. Yet, we are still told that the project is ‘under budget’! Exactly what this means is anybody’s guess considering that expenses keep rolling in and that income is non-existent! Surely the more honest approach would not be to claim that the implied entire project is under budget, but just that the building contract may be – that’s if Hansen and Yuncken decide not to challenge the Liquidated Damages! Finally, there is a little note stating that Liipshutz actually ‘requests’ that councillors be briefed ‘at the next opportunity’!!!!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY (6th and 13th December – so much for January and half of Feb!)

These ‘records’ are nothing short of astounding. First off, we make the observation that there is incredible inconsistency in the declarations of conflict of interest by various individuals. Repeatedly councillors and administrators leave the room for a minute or two with no clear indication as to whether there has been a conflict of interest declared or whether this is simply another case of weak bladders!

One such instance is that Andrew Newton has left the room when the Grill’d item is discussed. We wonder: did he declare a conflict of interest? Is that why he has left the room? Is that why this item was deemed ‘confidential” when every other lease agreement is reported openly? If this was a declaration of conflict of interest, then why isn’t it recorded as such in the records of assembly?

Another important item reads: “Cr Penhalluriack – said that a Councillor Conduct Panel hearing was being held at the Town Hall tomorrow. He advised that his solicitor has written a letter”. This is an extraordinary inclusion since the decision to send Penhalluriack to a Panel was obviously taken ‘in camera’. Previously we’ve had numerous excuses as to why in camera items cannot be disclosed. Yet, here we have a seeming lapse in ‘confidentiality’ from those responsible in the creation of the document. Again, we have to ponder the consistency, rationale, and agenda of all such publications.

Also worthy of note is the number of ‘amendments’ to these records suggested by Hyams.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS REPORT

‘Clerical errors’ are becoming a way of life with this council. This is now the second time that there is an inaccuracy in reporting on public questions. We are told that 19 questions were asked from October to December and that only 1 was declared inadmissible. Again, totally wrong. Our records show that at least two public questions were declared inadmissible during this period due to ‘harassment’. Further, two questions were taken on notice at the December 13th council meeting, but only one has been recorded in the February minutes. Again, the other clerical error contained in this ‘response’ is that the questioners’ NAME AND ADDRESS are included in these public minutes. This breaches the Information Privacy Act!

There is plenty more in this agenda that we will report on in the coming days.

 

February 23, 2012

More Sell-Offs?

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

The Monash vision to redevelop the Caulfield Campus is now firmly set with the confirmation of its Master Plan. What is less well known is Monash’s vision for its sporting facilities – and in particular its plans that include the Caulfield East Reserve.

We believe that in recent times Monash people have had discussions with Council which included issues surrounding the redevelopment and use of the Caulfield East Reserve – owned by Council and leased to Monash.

Given the fact that Glen Eira is now facing a “cash crisis”, has been classified as “high risk” and GESAC is probably losing money hand over fist due to its failure to open in the summer season, residents have every right to be apprehensive about this valuable piece of real estate. Our fear is that under these circumstances, the Newton vision will be further sell offs and more public land lost to residents. What makes us even more suspicious is this sentence from the draft Monash sport plans – “Develop relationship with Glen Eira City Council and enhance facilities and management control at East Caulfield Reserve”. (Uploaded)

Watch this space we say!

PS: In order to illustrate the basis of our above comments we’ve uploaded the draft ‘Sports Vision’. Readers should pay careful attention to the highlighted sections and as always with such documents, possibly read between the lines!

 

February 20, 2012

Connecting The Dots

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

The current ‘Community Plan Forums’ have consistently highlighted serious resident dissatisfaction with Council’s overall planning, traffic management and consultation practices. ‘Listening’ to the community is only part of Council’s task. Their job now is to implement radical change and to connect the dots between all three major issues.

It is a fallacy to see the above and other ‘problems’ such as flooding, parking, and ‘neighbourhood character’ as separate components or entirely State, Federal or Utility responsibility. There is much council can do via its planning scheme. All these problems are connected and solutions need to recognise this and provide answers that are not piece meal, ad hoc, and ineffectual. Amendments (such as C87) remain limited in scope and vision and in no way provide a remedy for the ills which currently beset the entire municipality. Yet, this has been council’s approach for the past decade – a little reactive and superficial tinkering here and there instead of a complete overhaul of its current housing strategy and activity centres policy.

Nowhere is this made more obvious that in the failed C49 Amendment where an independent Panel rejected Council’s meagre attempts at ‘control’ of the environment because the amendment lacked ‘strategic justification’. In other words, no grand integrated vision, and the lack of necessary homework. This is still true today. Many of the current policies that form the basis of the current Planning Scheme are not only outdated, but archaic. Housing dates back to 1996; open space to the same era; activity centres to 1999. This is not the way to plan for a community. Nor is the Glen Eira approach of continually tinkering with the edges such as the so called ‘transition zone’ amendment of last year that laughably is not a ‘zone’ at all. Now we have the C87 – again, an amendment that basically attempts to look after only 1000 or so properties.

We have in the past compared Glen Eira’s track record in planning with other councils – especially in relation to structure plans, height limits, parking precinct plans, public realm, etc. Glen Eira has none of these! Worse, residents have never been provided with any sound justification for the failure to include any of the above in the Planning Scheme.

We are not arguing that structure plans are a universal panacea that will solve all problems of overdevelopment. What we are arguing is that by refusing to go down this path, this administration and its councillors are not fulfilling their mandate to represent constituents and to ensure that development is planned, cohesive and embraces the principles of social, environmental and economic benefit to the community. We have to again ask why each of the following councils sees fit to have structure plans and either interim or permanent height controls, and why Glen Eira is again, and again, the odd man out? The list of these councils, and we’re sure there are plenty more, includes:

  • Bayside
  • Boroondara
  • Casey
  • Darebin
  • Frankston
  • Geelong
  • Hobson’s Bay
  • Hume
  • Kingston
  • Manningham
  • Moonee Valley
  • Port Phillip
  • Stonnington
  • Yarra City

Residents should start asking their councillors why this is so and demanding full and comprehensive answers.

 

February 18, 2012

GESAC: Dec., Jan., Feb., March, April, May….?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 
GESAC — an update from the Pools Steering Committee Chairman  
Dear fellow resident,
Following the industry shut down, construction at GESAC resumed on 16 January 2012. Council has taken every possible step to ensure that the construction is completed in a timely manner but, regrettably, construction is still under way in sections of the site, particularly the pool hall which lies in the centre of GESAC. As GESAC continues to be a construction site with significant plant and equipment in operation, it is not practicable to have public use and construction going on in the one facility. Council is disappointed at the construction delay.
Council expects to be granted partial access to some parts of the building this month in order to commission the plant and install equipment. That includes the multi-purpose courts, crèche, café, change rooms and parts of the gym. That will save some time in moving from the end of construction to the opening to the public.
GESAC will open as soon as possible but that is unlikely to be before the end of schools’ Term One (30 March).
Yours faithfully,
Cr Michael Lipshutz Chairman Pools Steering Committee

 

PS: This announcement was NOT ON COUNCIL’S HOME PAGE. It was ‘buried’ on the GESAC Facebook page!
 

February 17, 2012

Penhalluriack & VCAT Directions Hearing

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

The hearing apparently went for just under half an hour this morning. Both Council and Penhalluriack were represented by lawyers. The sequence of events went something like this:

  • Member asked each lawyer how long they anticipated the full hearing would go. Council’s lawyer said 3 days; Penhalluriack’s 5 to 7 days.
  • Council’s lawyer asked (with agreement from Penhalluriack’s lawyer) that the names of Donna Graham and Margaret Esakoff be removed and that Glen Eira City Council be substituted. Penhalluriack is the respondent.
  • Penhalluriack’s lawyer then raised some points about how nebulous and vague the 128 page document of allegations presented by Council were. For example: alleged failure to declare a conflict of interest but no precise reference to what the conflict may have been, nor the date, time, etc. Another allegation was ‘interactions’ with Mr. Newton and again no specifics. It was claimed that basically, the allegations lacked detail and substance and therefore council needed to specify their case far more clearly.
  • The member ordered that council produce a summary of the allegations that would be far more specific. He also ordered a compulsory conference and stated that there are two possible outcomes – either, the parties agree to some resolution, or if this fails, then the full VCAT hearing to proceed. Council was ordered to have the summary completed by early March and the conference to occur soon after.
  • Apparently Penhalluriack has also lodged an FOI application which council are opposing him on. This matter is to be heard before the compulsory conference. More residents’ funds going to lawyers!
  • Costs were reserved

COMMENT

Judging by all of the above it seems as if ratepayers are in for a very expensive ride. If QCs are employed for a week then we are really talking major expenditure – and this does not take into account briefing barristers or solicitors, much less the funding that has already gone into this exercise!

It’s also quite laughable that after so much ‘legal advice’, council still cannot get its act into gear and has to be ordered to produce a summary of 128 pages of vague, non-specific, allegations. We simply are left to ponder exactly how much this obviously sub standard tome has cost ratepayers!

 

February 14, 2012

Public Questions On Grill’d

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

The minutes of last week’s council meeting, record the following public question and ‘response’ on the Grill’d episode.

“I am asking the question of every councillor and would like to know from each of you individually if you were aware that public seating had been removed before you decided on this lease of public land on Jersey Parade at the last council meeting.” 

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Your question suggests that public seating in the licence area, that was freehold land and not part of the road reserve, was removed prior to Council considering the matter in the in-camera part of the 13 December 2011 Council Meeting. This is not correct. No public seating had been or has been removed from the area that was under consideration.

To ensure that you are properly informed Council is able to advise you that following on from a Town Planning application in 2011 relating to 86 Koornang Road, for which no objections were received, a footpath trading application was submitted by the applicant that led to a number of old public seats being removed from in front of the address. Newer higher quality public seating has been installed slightly north of the former location that enjoy the amenity provided by the nearby trees. The relocation was carried out under the supervision of a highly qualified Urban Designer.”

COMMENT: This response is both disingenuous and revealing. We assume that the questioner was simply asking whether councillors knew beforehand that public seating had been removed when they made their decision on the lease for Grill’d. The response is technically correct, since the lease was for land in Jersey Parade and not Koornang Rd where Grill’d is situated.

Of greater significance is the admission that the footpath trading application ‘led to a number of old seats being removed’. Hence the application went in and this resulted in the removal of public seating along Koornang Rd. None of this explains why the lease was deemed ‘confidential’, who paid for the removal, and why Grill’d would appear to have been granted some special treatment. For example:

  • below are 3 photographs. The first is of the site where the public benches and tables were removed.
  • The next photo shows the new ‘higher quality’ seating that has been put in. We calculate that 4 benches have been replaced by 2!
  • The third photograph is of Michel’s Pattisserie, also in Koornang Rd but where public seating is smack in the middle of private seating! Now, why should one retailer be granted exclusive rights to what was public space, and another (regardless of whether an application went in) have to arrange his tables around such public seating.

The questions remain –

  • Why was public seating removed AFTER a footpath trading permit went in?
  • Who paid the bills?
  • If this was ‘old seating’, then why hasn’t the rest of the seating in the street also been upgraded? Being steel framed surely the expected lifespan of such seating should be more than 5 years?
  • Why was this entire issue dealt with in camera and unlike countless other leases not out in public?
  • Why does Grill’d appear to have been given special consideration, whilst other retailers having to ‘fit around’ existing street furniture?
  • And surely, the ‘replacement’ seating could in no way be a response to the adverse publicity that has ensued? It would be fascinating to see the internal documents as to when and why such a decision was made!

Finally, we wish to make it absolutely clear that our concerns are with the processes of Council alone and not with Grill’d.

 

February 13, 2012

Community Plan – Wherefore Art Thou?

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

Tomorrow night will be the first ‘community forum’, ostensibly to seek residents’ input into the so called ‘Community Plan’. Problem is, that Glen Eira does not have a Community Plan. There are no two separate documents! What Glen Eira has is the Council Plan – although it is often conveniently labelled as a Community Plan. “Community” after all, is such a wonderful, heart warming word!

This isn’t a matter of neat semantics, or hair splitting over jargon. It goes to the very heart of what should distinguish a Community Plan from a Council Plan. Here are some definitions –

Banyule – “A Community Plan captures the community’s view of a vision, priorities and actions to enhance the physical, social and economic wellbeing of the local area. A key aspect of community planning is that the process and output is owned by the community”.

BAYSIDE – “The Bayside 2020 Community Plan expresses a vision for Bayside for the next ten years. Based on an extensive and ongoing community engagement process, it sits at the heart of Bayside’s planning framework, providing an essential reference for all of Council’s plans, policies and strategies and an orientation to community engagement, now and into the future”.

There are plenty more definitions but the following diagram from Bayside’s plan illustrates the relationship between the Community and Council Plan. Please note that the former feeds into the Council Plan which then leads on to the Action Plan.

 

So how does Glen Eira fit into this scenario? Do residents’ vision(s) ever sit at the heart of any policy, framework, or scheme devised and implemented by this council?

In both NSW and Queensland, a Community Plan is mandated by the respective Local Government Acts. In fact the Queensland guidelines state: “The corporate plan is drawn from the community plan…..the objectives, strategies and actions outlined in the corporate plan must be consistent with the vision of the community plan” (p.5) In Victoria, the legislation does not mention Community Plan. Section 125 simply talks about a Council Plan –“ A Council must prepare and approve a Council Plan within the period of 6 months after each general election or by the next 30 June, whichever is later”. This ‘plan’ must include ‘objectives’ and strategies for achieving the objectives as well as a means of monitoring and assessing the overall success of the implementation.

We bring all this to the attention of readers because it is vital that residents understand how Glen Eira is the odd man out when compared with some of our neighbouring councils. If this is really a genuine attempt to pinpoint what the community demands and expects, as well as to gauge their values, which subsequently inform the Council Plan, then many questions require answering:

  • Why was the Steering Committee not in force and operational PRIOR to the consultant’s report which has in the past formed the basis of the Council Plan? A report on setting up the Steering Group had been requested in March 2011 – nearly a year ago.
  • Why is there the need for another Council Plan review at this point in time rather than following the next election as required by the legislation and as Cr. Pilling has questioned on his blog? Why this ‘indecent haste’, especially since there has already been ‘consultation’ back in April, 2011?
  • Is this just more ‘smoke and mirrors’, designed to create the illusion of real consultation and the existence of a real ‘Community Plan’ when in fact the agendas have already been set via the inviolable Council Plan and its associated Strategic Resource Plan. A remarkable sentence appears in the minutes of the April 2011 item on the ‘consultation’ for the Council Plan: “Council proposes to retain the existing Council Plan”. More smoke and mirrors then, and perhaps now? Yes, let’s ‘consult’ but we won’t change a damn thing!

Obviously, this time around the proof will be in the eating. We sincerely hope that this is not just another expensive and orchestrated charade of ‘consultation’ – that the vision of the community will in the end become the foundation of the Council Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

February 8, 2012

Council Meeting: Rose Coloured Glasses?

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

Item: Financial Report

LIPSHUTZ: “once again a very good performance…..(surplus of $4 million) GESAC….impact on council…short term some slight impact on our (income)…(can be proud of the fact) “that we do spend our money on capital works…trees, drains, paths… …(every month except December has increased in capital works expenditure)…..’improving our drains….improving our infrastructure….(this council) spends money for the benefit of residents….good result….demonstrates once again that Mr. Swabey’s team are handling our finances very admirably….

PILLING: Basically endorsed Lipshutz’s statement and that GESAC (when it’s opened) will be a ‘wonderful facility’…at this stage of the cycle things are tight…but with good management….healthier prospect…’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I am concerned…..(with statement that we’re in a healthy state of affairs when the Auditor General labelled this council as) high risk….for a reason….a high risk council is a high risk council…(Spoke about council’s deposits of which) 73% are (in funds which have been downgraded from triple AAA to double AA and )that concerns me because this council has always had a sound financial footing….(referred to page 9 of the report on cash flow and that the Auditor General thought that this was) important enough to downgrade council……GESAC is a problem and I don’t want to say I told you so….has a very unusual effect on our books because ($25 million dollar borrowings) and we negotiated that loan prior to 2 rate reductions (hence paying more without) any income from GESAC….even when we (get income)…it still won’t be paying back the interest….(plus) costs of running GESAC…..it’s going to have Mr Lipshutz some impact

LIPSHUTZ: interrupted with ‘Cr. Lipshutz’

PENHALLURIACK: Cr. Lipshutz beg your pardon……I think we need to look very closely at this…(spoke about increasing rates to 9% and said that in NSW they’d brought down legislation to fix rates at 3.6%) that should be a maximum for us as well….we need to look at this without our rose coloured glasses on…..see what we can do to rationalise….(we do have a) serious financial situation….and need to face up to it….

TANG: Didn’t want to comment on the report itself but just ‘the things that have been raised in relation to the report…..(said that in raising the Auditor General’s report Penhalluriack made some) ‘false connections’…’I don’t think anything is a surprise…..councillors….(would have liked) GESAC to be open in December….the fact that we’re going into 25 million dollars debt…the fact that it will have an impact on our liquidity….reserves….we won’t be delaying (capital works)….have to forego other (unplanned projects)…none of this is a surprise….(Penhalluriack made these arguments when he voted against going into GESAC)….’we knew we would be here’…’we knew that we expected that the community would pay….none of this is a surprise….(Auditor general didn’t make any connection between income. Council is high risk because) we preplanned for ….we would go into debt….for a fixed period of time. Asked Penhalluriack – ‘Are you aware of how many (criteria the auditor general used to assess council and) which factors influenced the Auditor General’s decision?’…..

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m not an accountant….(but respects the Auditor General’s) judgement…

TANG: ‘I think we see eye to eye on that….(did auditor general make his decision on anything) other than liquidity management which council knew was going to be an issue?

PENHALLURIACK: I don’t know the answer to that question…I would be very disappointed if that was simply the only reason

LIPSHUTZ: Asked Swabey to explain the ‘issue of council’s current status…’

SWABEY:  Said there were about ‘5 or 6 ratios’….in four or five council exceeded….ratio requirements….liquidity we fell slightly under 1…the prescriptive nature of the auditor General’s assessment …..(due to current ratio)…(council runs down its funds around June or July) ‘at that point we were slightly under our current liabilities….at no stage….any problems….(always pay creditors)…..Spoke about the Strategic Resource plan and that debt repayments haven’t been delayed; interest is fixed;)…yes we do have forecast which says we will still have close to 1 liquidity ratio….we don’t expect this to be the case as of 30th June 2012….low liquidity ratio for a number of years….we expected that….high capital program…..

Hyams then asked about the consequences of being rated high risk

Swabey responded that council now has to report every 6 months on council position. Also said that liquidity ratio ‘changes from month to month’

LIPSHUTZ: Didn’t like Penhalluriack’s ‘scaremongering’….(knew what we were) ‘getting into….when GESAC is up and running and we’ve got 3000, 4000 members….I told you so…(Spoke about the past and the two pools and that the Northern memorial pool was) ‘a drain on council….unsustainable….we owe it to the community to have something that is worthwhile….state of the art pool that we knew would impose (some problems on community)….but also knew….short term pain for long term gain….this council is looked at as ….one of the best managed councils…clearly there is nothing to fear….sound….

MOTION PUT: Carried – Penhalluriack voted against.

The rest of the meeting will be reported on in the coming days.

 

February 7, 2012

How Does Glen Eira Stack Up?

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

We’ve repeatedly contrasted Glen Eira’s approach to development applications with those of other neighbouring councils. To jog people’s memory, here are some facts on council’s performance:

  • 20 storeys for C60 instead of mooted 23 storeys
  • 8 storeys for Glen Huntly Rd instead of 10 storeys (10 storeys in the end)
  • 7 storeys for Glen Huntly Rd instead of 14 storeys
  • Glen Eira has no interim or permanent height controls. To the best of our knowledge, no attempt has been made to gain such controls
  • Glen Eira has no structure plans for activity centres. Instead there is ongoing steadfast refusal to have structure plans
  • No consistent/adequate public consultation

When compared to the actions taken by Stonnington and Boroondara in recent times the failures of Glen Eira literally stick out like sore thumbs. We invite readers to compare and contrast.

126 Apartments Axed

Progress Leader – Holly McKay – 7th February

Plans for a 10-storey development in a suburban Hawthorn East street have been rejected. Boroondara Council refused the application, which included 126 apartments, a 65-seat café and two offices in Montrose St.

More than 110 objections were received, with worries that included parking, overshadowing, traffic congestion and overdevelopment.

Montrose Place resident Chris Chan said he was not anti-development, but proposals needed to be “appropriate”. “developers need to take the surrounding environment into consideration,” Mr Chan said. “A 10-storey building next to a five-storey one is not appropriate.”

Hawthors East resident Liang Tang said she was please dthe council had made a “sensible decision. “This has given them a chance to think about what is an appropriate development,” Ms Tang said. “I also think future processes should involve public consultation.”

Boroondara councillor Jack Wegman put forward the notice of refusal on the grounds it would have an “unreasonable impact” on the amenity of the area.

Developers Ration Consultants Pty Ltd did not return Leader’s calls before deadline.

Chaos over control

Stonnington Leader – Greg Gliddon & Nicole Cridland – 7th February

City needs minister to step in over plans

STONNINGTON Council is pressuring Planning Minister Matthew Guy to respond to a request for interim planning controls over the contentious plans for 590 Orrong Rd in Armadale.

The council was unanimous in rejecting plans for buildings up to 13 storeys and 475 dwellings last week. But Mayor John Chandler said current planning controls could allow the developer, Lend Lease, power to change its application before an expected appeal at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. VCAT can only use the planning scheme that exists at the time of the hearing to make a decision.

Cr Chandler said the council had made two requests to the minister, which had yet to be dealt with. ‘‘At this stage we are assessing the planning application under the existing planning rules, which are pretty open,’’ Cr Chandler said. ‘‘I asked the minister if he could deal with these requests and he asked when council had made them. ‘‘I suspect the (planning) department hasn’t put them before the minister as I’m not sure he was aware that we were waiting on these decisions. The minister told me he would deal with the interim controls last week.’’

Spokesman for Mr Guy, Nicholas Mcgowan, said the requests required close consideration because they conflicted with the existing local planning policy that the project had been assessed against. ‘‘The minister is looking at it with a view to making a position known in the very near future,’’ he said.

Lend Lease Apartments general manager Ben Coughlan said the decision did not recognise major redesign of the original plans — which were knocked back by the council in December 2010 — responding to community concerns about shadows, height, density, traffic and open space. ‘‘We will now consider council’s position before making a decision on next steps,’’ Mr Coughlan said.

PS: From the Moonee Valley Leader – 7th February –  Linh Ly

Club details sought

MOONEE Valley Council has asked for more information before it makes a full assessment on the proposed Moonee Valley Racecourse master plan. The council has met the Moonee Valley Racing Club to discuss its development proposal. The proposal includes plans for 2000 new dwellings and buildings of up to 25 storeys.

Council chief executive Neville Smith said the proposal was missing a sufficient amount of detail to justify a development of such size. The council is seeking more detail on a range of areas, including population size, traffic and parking, housing mix, running of events, open space and the impact on existing facilities, businesses and residents.

The club will need to provide more information before the council will consider seeking permission from Planning Minister Matthew Guy to start community consultation. Racing club chief executive Michael Browell said the club would review the council assessment and consultant reports but it ‘‘in no way constitutes a final decision on the master plan’’.

The club is expected to meet the council again in two weeks.

The council also met residents from Save Moonee Ponds to discuss the development plans.

The full assessment and consultant reports are available online today at mvcc. vic. gov. au/ race course”.

Finally, we’ve had a quick scan of the Moonee Valley Council’s response to the development plan for the racecourse. It’s uploaded here. Again, the Council’s response – ie demand for detail; criticisms; and holistic appraisal, puts Glen Eira’s responses to the MRC/C60 plan to shame. We again suggest that all residents take a close look at this report and just consider the question of whether Glen Eira Council is really doing all it can to support and protect residents and their local amenities? Also worthy of note is the extensive external expertise that the Moonee Valley Council used.

 

February 6, 2012

Funny Business Is Getting Funnier!

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

We’ve just had an email from an alert reader informing us that the Grill’d restaurant (where public seating was removed and replaced with private (commercial) tables and chairs) now has a LIQUOR permit application sticker on its window. Even more strange is the fact that the table and chairs which had begun in Koornang Rd and then spilled over into Jersey Parade have recently disappeared from the latter location.

The plot gets murkier day by day. First the disappearance of public seating to be replaced by the restaurant’s private table and chairs; next an in camera decision on the lease of land; no announcement of result and now, this perhaps final piece in the jigsaw. A liquor licence application for public open space right next to a library where kids, mothers etc. frequent.

We simply ask: what funny buggers have and still are going on? Why the secrecy? Why a land lease in the first place instead of a normal permit application for tables and chairs? Why no announcement and why at this point in time (after the awarding we presume of the ‘land’) there is now a liquor application? Does this mean that liquor will be consumed out in the open at those private tables and chairs? Should there be any concerns about the chronology of these events? How much did councillors know about anything? All questions that require answers councillors!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »