GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

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!

 

February 2, 2012

A Resident’s Point Of View

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

Paul Burke is dissembling once again. The consultation held prior to the adoption of the detestable Urban Villages policy did not support the vision that Council chose to adopt. At *no stage* did the community authorize Council to waive compliance with ResCode. The community has never accepted that developer profit is sufficient reason to waive compliance. Council refuses to invest in the infrastructure necessary to support quality high-density living. People who read the policy will be aware that there are obligations on Council around not exacerabiting existing traffic congestion problems.

Council has never explained who or what a “pedestrian driver” is, or why some developers have been allowed to build without a Planning Permit. Even the recent pathetic response from Paul Burke about the loss of trees at Council reminds us that car parking for council officers is more important. This is despite them being located on 2 different modes of public transport. The hasty vote to expand the carpark at GESAC rather than provide adequate public transport reinforces the message that they simply don’t believe in their policy. The lack of Structure Plans for areas targetted for the highest densities is extraordinary considering the benefits DPCD claims for them.

We have crumbling infrastructure that Council can’t maintain. Developers don’t pay for the infrastructure needed to support their profits–we the community are expected to subsidize them. So what does Council do? It votes to remove Development Contributions Overlays. (If you can believe Council, $150K was inadequate, and it cost them more than that to collect.)

Even the way C87 has been handled shows contempt for us. Council has published an “Explanatory Report” which is supposed to answer why the amendment is necessary and what the benefits are. It claims its needed because a Planisphere report recommended it. The Planisphere outlines what Council told it to do, and it has done as Council has asked (and paid them to do). Note also that Planisphere was explicitly told *not* to consider any property outside of the Minimal Change areas. The benefits listed apply only to the chosen few residents and seem to undermine Council’s pro-development arguments elsewhere.

As Council has been forced to admit, the Objectives of Planning in Victoria include “to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use” of land, and “to secure a pleasant, efficient, and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians”. It has failed to demonstrate in the propaganda distributed with C87 how it has met *any* of these Objectives. There’s certainly nothing fair about Council’s policies, very little that’s pleasant about the consequences, and its failure to provide open space within safe walking distance of the urban ghettos its encouraging, despite collecting money to pay for it, is simply insulting.

 

February 1, 2012

GESAC & McKinnon Basketball

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

The MBA Executive have put out the following statement:

Dear Members,

GESAC Update from Council Meeting 14-Dec-2011

We are very keen for the MBA to have a presence in GESAC as we see ourselves as clearly the most logical occupant. Consequently we will work with Council and the Warriors to see whether there is a way in which the proposal as outlined below can be made to work.

However, what the motion does not contemplate is the fact that the court space we currently occupy is not ours to allocate to others as we see fit. As such we will need to work with our relevant schools to determine whether they would be agreeable to such an arrangement. This process has already commenced. It is important to stress this point as some recent media reports suggest that we have already agreed to the proposal as outlined in the motion, we have only made such commitments subject to agreement from our existing landlords.

On December 14, 2011 a motion was put before Glen Eira City Council by Councillors Hyams and Lipshitz, the motion read as follows:

That Council

  1. Note that:
    1. As the result of a fair and proper Expression of Interest (EoI) process, the use of the GESAC indoor courts for basketball was allocated to the Warriors;
    2. In the interests of maximising the use of the GESAC indoor courts by the community, Council’s preferred position is that the basketball allocation be shared between the Warriors and the McKinnon Basketball Association (MBA); and
    3. Notwithstanding the allocation referred to in (a), the Warriors have indicated a willingness to share that allocation with the MBA.
  2. Allocate the use of the GESAC indoor courts to the Warriors on Fridays from 6pm to 11pm and Sundays from 9am to 11pm.
  3. Allocate the use of the GESAC indoor courts to the MBA on Saturdays from 8am to 11pm subject to the MBA agreeing by January 15 2012 to provide two alternative basketball courts to the Warriors from 8am to 7pm on Saturdays to the reasonable satisfaction of the Warriors, or, if such agreement is not reached, or observed, allocate the GESAC indoor courts to the Warriors on Saturdays from 8am to 7pm.
  4. In all other respects, apply the terms and conditions of the allocation referred to in 1(a) to the use of the courts by the Warriors and, if applicable, to the MBA.
  5. Authorise officers to give effect to this resolution.
  6. Incorporate this resolution and this report in the public Minutes of this Meeting apart from Council’s legal advice at section 3.4 of this report and in the attachments.

DIVISION Cr Magee called for a Division on voting of the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION FOR: Cr Tang, Cr Hyams, Cr Lipshutz, Cr Forge AGAINST: Cr Magee, Cr Penhalluriack, Cr Pilling, Cr Esakoff

The SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was put and CARRIED on the casting Vote of the Chairperson (Mayor Cr. Hyams)

Finally, it is worth noting that this allocation is for 12 months and that it is our understanding that should the Warriors be unable to fully utilize the space they have committed to for their own use, any surplus capacity will be reallocated by Council and must first be offered to McKinnon.

Kind regards

MBA Executive Committee

Source: http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?client=1-4059-0-0-0

 

 

January 29, 2012

We Were Right!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

New boundaries are being declared along the Elster Creek Trail – as we suspected! We’ve previously highlighted what this implies regarding Council’s planning department and how poorly they do their requisite homework. For example:

  • The claiming of land has been known to council for at least 15 years
  • They’ve spent a fortune on a concrete path without first checking to see whether they have constructed this path on, or far too close to private property
  • The most interesting query is whether ratepayers will be forking out money to ensure that this and potentially other new fences do not sit on, or right next to the yellow brick road. If money is handed over to landowners, then what’s the cost to residents for something that should never have happened?

We reiterate – we do not have any problem with landowners claiming what is their legal right to land. At anywhere between $1000 and $2000 per square foot this is not a negligible sum that many would be ready to forego. What we do have a major problem with, is the failure of this council to ensure that all necessary planning has been done beforehand. When you create a flood plain (as the raising of this path has done), and when you don’t know where public and private land meet, then we believe there is cause for concern as to the competence of those responsible.

The slideshow reveals the ‘before’ and ‘after’ view and the amount of land that has now been ‘reclaimed’. Please also note that the new fence line is directly over major drainage and a lightpole. Who pays for relocating, removing is another fascinating query. We also wonder whether the landowner fully realises that this particular section of the trail is more often than not under several inches of water thanks to the new yellow brick road!

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

January 27, 2012

GESAC Basketball

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

The silence from both the Warriors and the McKinnon basketball club does not augur well for the ‘compromise’ that got over the line at last council meeting on the casting vote of Mayor Hyams. The deadline for ‘agreement’ was listed as the 16th January. Now twelve days later there is deathly silence from both groups. Hence we can only surmise that the deal has fallen through – either because ‘suitable’ playing venues for the Warriors on the Saturday weren’t acceptable to them, or to the location owners the McKinnon club offered.

Whichever, it again highlights the total balls up by the administration and councillors. It basically leaves the Warriors with the prospect of filling all the venues, paying out big bucks and praying like hell that they can cover costs or get someone else to cover the costs for them via a ‘takeover’. In the end GESAC may not be the home of either the Warriors or McKinnon.

 

January 25, 2012

Guess the Glen Eira Park

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[25] Comments 

 

January 19, 2012

Profligacy Or Sound Financial Management?

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

These are the facts currently facing Glen Eira:

  • a ‘high risk’ council as determined by the Auditor General
  • a liquidity cash crisis due to GESAC
  • repeated statements on the need to curb spending

So, given these circumstances, it is absolutely astonishing that we find the following Media Release by the Minister for Sport & Recreation.

Funding boost for new playspace at Murrumbeena Park

Thursday, 19 January 2012

Families in the Murrumbeena area will soon have access to an exciting new accessible playspace thanks to $258,921 of Victorian Government funding set to go towards a new community facility at the popular Murrumbeena Park.

Minister for Sport and Recreation Hugh Delahunty visited Murrumbeena Park today to announce the funding boost from the latest round of the Community Facility Funding Program.

“Local parks provide a fantastic outdoor space for families to get together, socialise, enjoy a picnic, relax or get active,” Mr Delahunty said.

“The proposed new playspace will add a whole new dimension to the Murrumbeena Park, providing even more recreation options for this growing community.

“This new project will introduce a variety of new play equipment to excite and challenge children of all abilities and backgrounds, testing their dexterity and, most importantly, encouraging fun activities,” Mr Delahunty said.

The project includes the development of a new regional playspace and social area featuring play equipment that ranges from junior to senior level and will be complimented with creative garden landscaping.

Mr Delahunty said the new playspace was also designed to complement the park’s existing charm and character.

“Murrumbeena Park is also home to several local sports clubs including the Murrumbeena Football and Bowls Clubs.

“Once fully established the new play space will encourage not just local kids but the whole community to venture outside more often to exercise, socialise, join a club and get more active, more often,” Mr Delahunty said

“By investing in high-quality, accessible community sport and recreation facilities across Victoria, the program goes a long way towards increasing participation and improved access to sport and recreation activities in communities like Murrumbeena,” Mr Delahunty said.

Mr Delahunty congratulated the City of Glen Eira for contributing $776,764 towards the project.

COMMENTS:

  • A playground already exists (see photo below)
  • The $776,764 does not appear anywhere in the 2011/12 budget
  • Did councillors know of this proposed expenditure & grant application?
  • Why does it seem that all grants have something to do with either sport, or appearance? How many applications have gone in for structure plans, transport plans, children’s hubs, etc. etc.? The real ‘nuts and bolts’ for successful planning?
  • Why is council now spending another million dollars on a park when we have a ‘cash crisis’? What does this say about the financial management of Glen Eira and the strategic directions being pursued?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »