GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 2, 2012

Definitely An Election Year!

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

Below is part of the transcript from yesterday’s parliamentary sitting.

Caulfield electorate: open space

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — I rise to speak on the adjournment tonight and address a matter to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. The matter I seek to raise relates to the important issue of open space and sporting facilities in my electorate of Caulfield. I ask the minister to investigate whether his department can provide some support for my local councils to investigate improving and increasing the available open space in my electorate. This is a great problem within our community because we have so many young up-and-coming people who want to play sport, including juniors who are coming through the clubs, and they are in desperate need of grounds to play on.

Open space is a real concern in the community, and it is an issue I have raised on countless occasions in this chamber. I have noted that the city of Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any municipality in Melbourne, with only about 6 per cent of the city’s 230 hectares classified as public land.

There is open space in our neighbouring areas that many of our constituents use. Elsternwick Park in the Brighton electorate is an area that is used, and the member for Brighton has also been advocating for some time for the upgrade of the facilities in the park.

The park is a great facility, but it is in desperate need of an upgrade. Given the growing population of Melbourne and the importance of local people being able to utilise open space, we need something to be done about it. Access to open space is as important as roads and infrastructure, and it provides the much-needed heart that breathes life into a city. There is no question that in our case we are in desperate need of a heart transplant.

We need to look at ways to get more open space. I have looked into this issue, and it was back in the 1990s that work was last done within the council to look at how open space could be utilised. We have a number of areas within my electorate that could be further utilised, such as the former reservoir on the corner of Glen Huntly and Booran roads, which is currently fenced and not used. It has been fenced for some time. Whether it be passive space or whether it be active space for sporting clubs such as football, cricket or soccer, which has experienced increased participation rates right across Victoria, there is a desperate need to do something about this issue. We have a number of people using open space passively, including for dog walking, and we have recently done some work on the five precincts of open space at Caulfield Racecourse.

That also needs to be factored in as part of a review. I ask the Minister for Sport and Recreation to provide some much-needed funds to conduct research into how we could better utilise our open space and come up with a better plan for the city

…………..

MS. ASHER

I am delighted to inform the member for Bentleigh that the coalition government, through Tourism Victoria’s events program, has allocated $10 000 to help market the games. The idea is to encourage spectators, competitors and their accompanying family members and friends to stay on and explore Melbourne and regional Victoria. As the Deputy Speaker knows, Victoria is a very compact state and people can get around very easily. I know the member for Bentleigh will be forcefully advocating this event amongst 2014 games.

The funding will be used for website development and for advertising in agency journals, magazines and newsletters as well as for posters, postcards, brochures and promotional activities at the upcoming 2012 games to be held in New Zealand next month. I am sure the Victoria Police members from the Moorabbin and Caulfield police stations who service the member for Bentleigh’s electorate will be very involved in promotional activities for a very good purpose rather than for purposes that have nothing to do with the economic development of the state of Victoria.

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

MR DELAHANTY

I am also pleased to inform the member for Caulfield, who is here tonight, that the Glen Eira City Council has been provided with $30 000 for its open space strategy. The member for Caulfield spoke about the fact that we cannot create any more open space; it is about how we use the space we have. It is important that we plan for its use and all those types of things. One of the things that was brought to my attention when I was the shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation was people’s concern about access to sporting facilities, whether that be for passive or active recreation. As we know, Melbourne is the sporting capital of the world and Victoria is the sporting state. We need to plan for the further use of our sporting facilities.

I am also pleased to announce that the Bayside City Council has been awarded $22 500 for the Elsternwick Park precinct. I know that the member for Caulfield raised this matter, but the member for Brighton, who is in the house, also spoke to me about it; it is in her electorate. I had a brother who used to live not far from there, and I know the park very well. This funding will enable options to be investigated for providing new and upgraded sporting facilities at Elsternwick Park.

The Victorian government is committed to helping communities stay active, enjoy their sport and recreation facilities and lead healthier lives. The first step in achieving this is to identify opportunities and priorities through strategic planning.

This funding will support a strategic approach through community working with councils in the provision of sport and recreation facilities and programs. We want to see people stay more active more often, and this planning will allow that to happen

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

This latest funding is on top of the $80,000 announced on Tuesday for lighting at the Packer Park vel0drome.

 

February 27, 2012

GESAC Basketball: The Saga Continues…..

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

GESAC Update 26-Feb-2012
As reported previously, Council awarded use of GESAC to Oakleigh Warriors but made provision for McKinnon to use the courts on Saturdays in exchange for providing two of our existing courts to Oakleigh.  Oakleigh advised us that they would only be interested in Bentleigh or Brighton under such an arrangement.  We approached the principals of both schools to see whether they would be prepared to entertain a sub-lease arrangement with Oakleigh. Unfortunately, in each case the schools rejected the proposal as they prefer to continue to deal with one organisation.

We now expect to have discussions with Council about using any surplus capacity which Warriors are unable to utilise.  As you may be aware, the mayor and other councillors have advised that any space which Warriors are unable to occupy will first be offered to McKinnon and that Oakleigh cannot be allowed to sublet the space. We will be asking the council how we can have access to the surplus space.
Kind regards
MBA Executive Committee

 

 

February 27, 2012

Agendas & More Secrecy

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

In the overall scheme of things, this is probably a very minor issue. However, we believe it illustrates much about both the continual bungling by this council and then the abuse of the ‘in camera’ component of the legislation in order to cover up and avoid real scrutiny of such bungled operations. We refer to Item 12.1 of the ‘in camera’ items: “12.1 under s89(2)(e) “proposed development” which relates to the gifting of land to Council (Hopkins St, McKinnon).”  It looks like we were again dead right!

Readers may recall that several weeks ago we highlighted the fact that owners along the Elster Creek trail were reclaiming their rightful land by moving their fences out into the trail proper. We also queried how council had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars on a yellow brick road without doing the necessary homework first.  It is now obvious that the path was potentially under threat by the realignment of property fencing. We concluded that council should have known what was likely to happen given past history of this area, and that they were literally caught with their pants down. We now conclude that this in camera item relates to this bungled issue for the following reasons:

  • Hopkins St. backs onto the Trail
  • Why would anyone ‘gift’ valuable land to the council unless there was a special need to do so?
  • Why would council go through the expense of ‘accepting’ such land unless there was a special need to do so?
  • Why is this item in camera? Surely when someone is so very generous and magnanimous as to ‘gift’ thousands of dollars of private property away, they deserve to be applauded, lauded, thanked. It isn’t every day that someone ‘gifts’ land  – especially with the price of land these days?

We connect the dots and make the following observations. The reason that this item is secret is because it would draw attention to another bungled Council operation. Council did not take into account the fact that its new path was either directly encroaching upon, or too close to residents’ properties to make for a viable shared path. The only solution was to either buy, or have land ‘gifted’ to them to avoid embarrassment and disclosure. Further, the fact that there is a plaque stuck in the middle of the trail at present acknowledging previous title transfers (2008) is further evidence that council should have known that there were numerous private parcels of land within the trail. This only raises the question of why these earlier land transfers are publically applauded and this one very generous act by a resident is conducted in secret. Our answer? To cover up what is another example of poor planning, poor decision making and a waste of residents’ money. All of this of course begs the question of how many other properties are entitled to move out and thus endanger the viability of the path? Will someone else suddenly ‘gift’ land to council?  Or will they exercise their legal rights to claim what is their land?

 

 

February 25, 2012

Agenda: More Smoke & Mirrors II

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

Agenda Item 9.7 features a report presumably written by Paul Burke on the possibility of redeveloping the Victory Park pavilion. In November 2007 there was also a report which included a ‘Pavilion Priority Listing’. Victory Park was ranked 6th in 2007 for redevelopment. In this latest report on Victory Park we find the usual tactics employed – need to adhere to the strategic resource plan and budget, as well as providing 4 options, two of which will cost the earth and a third which recommends ‘do nothing’. Option A is of course the cheapest, so if councillors are really adamant they’ll opt for this far from ideal solution. Memories of the GESAC car park extension argument resonates strongly here.  Apart from all this history, there is one vital sentence in the current Burke report:

“A recent review in August 2011 of the report ranked the Victory Park Pavilion seventh in priority list.”

We point out that such a ‘review’ has never made it into the public domain. Further, if such a review was conducted in August 2011, then why on the 20th September 2011 was this August ‘review’ never mentioned? Instead there was a vote on the redevelopment of the Centenary Park pavilion and the $500,000 grant received from the State Government? If councillors were aware of this August ‘review’ then the following debate from the chamber is superfluous, if not ridiculous. However, if they were not aware of the review and its sudden reassignment of Victory Park to category 7, then what does this say about information dissemination within council? Or is such a ‘review’ only for the eyes of Mr Burke and the Sports Department? Or the other possibility of course is does such a ‘review’ even exist?

Below is part of the post we put up following the September council debate. Please note carefully the interchange between Hyams and Tang.

TANG: Asked a question since Hyams referred to the priority list and that Cooper reserve was next on priority list – ‘In my understanding it wasn’t in our publicised pavilion ranking list….(so asked question of Magee, Hyams or officer)…’how this can be called the next priority in the list?’

HYAMS: Stated that he was referring to the 2007 list where Marlborough pavilion was listed but ‘that list was only a guide and subject to subsequent decisions and if we pass this motion tonight we will be making a subsequent decision’…’low use of Marlborough….pavilion…(and there has been further discussion on priority lists in assembly meetings).

TANG: Stated that he’s not against the Julia Cooper pavilion being rebuilt….‘my problem though is that council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’….(one reason could be a grant from government) ‘and in this instance $500,000 is a quarter of the estimated’ (cost)….’so if government grants (are responsible for changing priority listing) ‘then that should also be transparent’ …’so Marlborough reserve is missing out at the expense of the Julia cooper Pavilion’…‘this is probably a premature decision of council. We should first indicate if our priorities have changed….’foreshadowing a motion of deferral’.

COMMENT

  • In September councillors are still referring to the November 2007 priority list. No mention of Burke’s review of August 2011!
  • The magical appearance of grants for Centenary, and now Marlborough even though these are out of order according to the priority listing from November 2007
  • If priority listings have changed then to quote Tang, ‘council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’!!!!!!!
  • What is the real truth and how much of this report is just more smoke and mirrors? Does this report even exist? If it does, then it must be in the public domain and the criteria and rationale for changes also published!
  • Finally, we mustn’t forget to mention that the Audit Committee Annual Report still hasn’t appeared! Why?
 

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.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »