Mistakes can and do happen. But when you are a council with all the available technology, and (presumably) check and balance systems, then how is it possible that something like this shows up on your home page?
GE Service Performance
Archived Posts from this Category
July 8, 2021
Embarrassing!
Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[5] Comments
June 28, 2021
The Budget
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[8] Comments
Council will be voting on the draft budget this Tuesday night. The differences between the May version of the budget and what is now presented is remarkable. Whilst some areas have received increased funding, the issues that were highlighted in the submissions have been totally ignored. This once again raises the question of why bother to ask for community input, when the recommendations are so flagrantly ignored year after year? Residents are never given the opportunity to specify what their priorities are. Instead we continue with the top-down approach and the minimalist adherence to the legislation. God forbid that residents be given the opportunity to answer such questions as: where do you want your money to be spent and how much?
The submissions made it very clear that what was needed was:
- Increased funding for the urban forest strategy. This still remains at the May version of $200,000!
- More funding for the acquisition of new open space. Nothing has changed from the $7M proposed in May.
- Residents wanted the bicycle strategy to receive a minimum of $500,000. We are still stuck on $250,000.
At this rate, we can be waiting well into the 22nd century before our tree canopy reaches any reasonable target, or there is sufficient open space to accommodate the increasing population.
Yet council has still managed to find and allocate huge increases to various projects that are not only questionable, but where we believe most residents would argue aren’t necessary and certainly not on the top of the priority list. Please note, we are not arguing that these things shouldn’t be done. What we are suggesting is that given all the other major issues that are currently confronting Glen Eira, that much of this money should have been directed into those areas that demand immediate action – such as open space, the urban forest strategy, structure planning, amendments for development contribution levies, etc.etc. Five years on from the ordered Planning Scheme Review, we have practically nothing in concrete outcomes.
Below is a table which depicts the monies allocated for the various projects according to the May and then the June draft budgets – and all with hardly any detail.
| PROJECT | MAY DRAFT BUDGET | JUNE DRAFT BUDGET |
| Caulfield Park Masterplan | $600,000 | $710,000 |
| Duncan Mackinnon Netball | $200,000 | $250,000 |
| Pedestrian Safety | $205,000 | $355,000 |
| GREAT WALKS STREET | Not listed | $700,000 |
| Outer Circle | $40,000 | $700,000 |
| Lord Reserve/Koornang Park master plan implementation | $500,000 | $680,000 |
| Hopetoun Gardens | $40,000 | $220,000 |
| Tennis Strategy | $75,000 | $275,000 |
| Caulfield Park master plan implementation | $40,000 | $790,000 |
| Princes Park Playground upgrade | Not listed | $1,250,000 |
Surely some of these projects, and their massive increases in funding, could be deferred until this council sorted out its other major concerns as we’ve listed above.
Finally, it is also remarkable that in the space of one month, we have gone from an estimated deficit of $45,000 to a suggested surplus of over $11M where the announced government grants somehow don’t add up to this amount!
Our final comment is that until this council is prepared to provide full and comprehensive explanations for its decision making and budget allocations, residents are once again left in the dark with no real say as to how their money is and should be spent.
June 22, 2021
Planning Transparency – Does It Exist In Glen Eira?
Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
Whatever the outcome of Mr Wylie’s Supreme Court Challenge, the issues are crucial in terms of the planning system itself, and especially how the planning department at Glen Eira Council operates. Part of Mr Wylie’s concerns appear to be the lack of sufficient notification to residents that an application has been submitted to council. According to the legislation, it is council which has the power to decide who and how many properties will be alerted to the fact that an application has come in. Hence, if only a handful of notification letters are sent out, then it is not surprising that there are none, or very few objections. Mr Wylie claims that in his case, only those adjoining sites zoned Commercial 1 were notified and that neighbouring residents were left in the dark – hence the claim that there were zero objections in this matter. It is very plausible to suggest that had neighbours living in surrounding NRZ zoned sites been aware, then the chances of objections to a 5 storey development would have brought in at least a few objections.
But that’s only part of the problem. Not so long ago, officer reports in Glen Eira regularly noted the number of notifications sent out, and the number of ensuing objections. For the past few years this has now ceased. We have absolutely no idea as to how many letters council ordered the developer to send out, nor to which properties. Nor do we know where the objectors lived. Other councils such as Boroondara, feature maps of where the letters went and where objectors lived in relation to the application. (See image below). Other councils (Monash, Port Phillip to name a few) also include maps showing the number of objectors and their residences. In Glen Eira we are left in the dark on both of these important matters.
Also of major concern is the secrecy surrounding council’s DPC (delegated planning committee). We have commented numerous times over the years that this committee lacks all transparency and accountability. Meetings are held during the day, where both the developer and objectors can appear to state their views. The three officers then leave the room and come back in about 20 minutes with their decision to grant, refuse, or impose conditions. No agendas are ever published and certainly no minutes. Hence, residents have no idea why a permit may have been granted or refused. Plus, for years our council operated under Section 86 of the legislation meaning that agendas, and minutes, had to be published. An ombudsman’s report in 2016 cited us, and forced Glen Eira to amend its delegation so that it no longer was constituted under the Special Committee requirements. The committee still operates as before – no councillors present, no agendas, no minutes, and no accountability!
Making matters even worse, is that in December 2018, councillors voted to change the delegation authority for this committee. There now has to be at least 16 objections before an application can be brought to council. Anything less becomes the purview of this committee.
We are not suggesting that there is no place for such a committee. Clearly councillors can’t be expected to ‘adjudicate’ on all planning applications. What we do expect, is that there be far more transparency and accountability when it comes to planning. Other councils have ALL councillors as part of their planning committees – whether or not these are seen as Special Committees. In Glen Eira, councillors are, we believe seen as nothing more than unnecessary appendages that will only hinder the work of the bureaucrats, so let’s sideline them as much as possible. Such an ethos is the antithesis of good planning and full transparency and accountability.
June 18, 2021
Planning Held To Account
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[4] Comments
It’s with great interest that residents need to follow the following Supreme Court Case –
This raises innumerable questions:
- How much of ratepayers’ money will council expend in fighting this case?
- Were councillors apprised of what was happening and if so, when?
- How many more times will this planning department overlook their own planning scheme and recommend permits that are highly questionable?
PS: Today’s (Saturday’s Age) –
June 17, 2021
June 14, 2021
Budget Submissions: Telling It Like It Is
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[2] Comments
Public submissions for the draft budget and Strategic Resource Plan, have one consistent theme running through nearly all of the presentations. This is best summed up with this sentence from one such submission –
It is one thing to have a strategy and action plan in place, it is quite another to implement them. As Councillors would well know, implementation requires funded projects. It is here that Council is lacking.
Time and again throughout all of these well documented and thoughtful submissions we find similar statements. Council has policies, plans, strategies but implementation is either non-existent, or years behind schedule, and simply underfunded and/or forgotten about. This applies across all departments – from Caulfield Park implementation of the Master Plan, to bike paths, open space, the Urban Forest Strategy or the Climate Emergency. Nothing seems to have been done or certainly not funded enough to ensure real progress on any of these issues.
Then we also have the penny pinching that is so common in Glen Eira. Child care fees go up another $3 per day. Council’s persistent claims about such repeated rises is that they are on a par with the private providers. Only now the differences are made clear thanks to these submissions – ie whilst the fee per day might be equitable, council does not provide lunches or nappies. As for the car share options, that has remained static, yet for all the talk about reducing the number of cars on our roads, very little has been done to expand this option for residents. Instead fees are through the roof! Glen Eira’s car share policy first came to notice in 2016. Its subsequent policy is dated 2017-20 – hence defunct and out of date. We currently have 12 car share spaces in comparison to: Yarra – aiming for 231 in the next 5 years; port Phillip in 2018 had 181; and as far back as 2015 Moreland had 40. The rhetoric and the reality are simply miles apart on so many issues.
Council can ratify as many policies/strategies as it likes, but until there is a genuine commitment to fund such projects adequately nothing will change. Policies become nothing more than another worthless piece of public relations providing the illusion that council does give a damn about the lack of open space, the destruction of our tree canopy, and the failure to progress the bicycle strategy or provide sufficient car share opportunities. Residents should really start asking themselves whether this council’s priorities are in line with ratepayers’ thinking. Of course, ratepayers have never been provided with the opportunity to have a say in what these priorities should be before they are presented with the draft budget. In Glen Eira it would be fair to say that residents are nothing more than cash cows!
June 10, 2021
Our Planning Department & Residents
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance[7] Comments
If any resident still has doubts as to the planning department’s priorities then listening to Item 8.1 from Tuesday’s council meeting will resolve any doubts still held. (See: http://webcast.gleneira.vic.gov.au/archive/video21-0608.php#placeholder)
Item 8.1 was for an application at 646-66 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield South – a 5 storey mixed use development including 18 apartments, a shop and an office. There were 16 objections including one from an adjoining resident who asked that council include in its conditions screening for the balcony on one of the units since this directly overlooked his back yard’s private open space. No such condition appeared in the officer’s recommendation.
We therefore congratulate the 8 councillors who finally determined that such a condition be imposed within the ensuing permit – especially councillor Zyngier who first brought the issue up and moved the amendment for the inclusion of the condition. The only councillor who saw fit to reject such a proposal was Athanasopolous. His arguments revived the nonsense that was the modus operandi of Hyams, Lipshutz and others from the past – that VCAT would not uphold this condition since all the ResCode guidelines on this issue had been met. After 5 years as a councillor one would hope that Athanasopolous should know by now that future decisions by VCAT are irrelevant to council’s decision making. Planning Schemes make no mention of VCAT. What they do say is that each application must be evaluated on its individual merits – ie according to zoning, urban design, decision guidelines, etc. What VCAT may or may not decide is irrelevant. Furthermore, since the additional condition of screening is certainly minor, the developer would do his sums, consider the inevitable time lag, and in all probability decide that going to VCAT was not in his best interests.
But it gets worse when Torres was asked two questions. We include both of his responses below.
COMMENTS:
- The reliance on Rescode as an argument against imposing the condition is nothing more than a furphy. First of all, there is nothing MANDATORY about ResCode. Secondly, ResCode does NOT APPLY to building of 5 or more storeys!
- Council has on numerous occasions imposed conditions that far exceed the ResCode requirements. The perfect examples are previous applications along Neerim Road, Belsize, etc. These were all for 4 storeys where ResCode did apply.
- It is very sad indeed that in Torres’ second response his emphases was entirely on the amenity of the apartment, rather than the amenity of the neighbouring resident! Also the response is quite frankly ridiculous given that other apartments in this development all required screening! So much for ‘avoiding screening’!
Again, we congratulate those 8 councillors for showing common sense, and a concern for residents. Something this planning department appears incapable of doing!
June 3, 2021
Mandatory Heights: ‘We Will Give It A Red Hot Crack’!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[5] Comments
At last night’s Zoom forum on the Built Form Frameworks for Caulfield South, we had Kate Jewell (Co-ordinator City Strategy) make the pronouncement that’s in the header to this post. This statement followed resident after resident complaining vigorously about council’s reluctance to impose mandatory heights.
Here is the audio of this interchange:
Jewell’s statement tosses the ball straight back into councillors’ court. They have the power to oversee policy direction. They also have the power to pass resolutions which officers are mandated to follow. We have already had some examples of this – namely the abandonment of Amendments for Glen Huntly and for Bentleigh & Carnegie. This is no different. The question thus becomes:
- Will councillors have the courage to insist on mandatory heights for all neighbourhood centres?
- Will councillors, as representatives of their constituents, act in accordance with the community’s wishes?
- Will councillors finally see the folly of this planning department and insist that the foundation for all strategic planning must derive from a comprehensive Housing Strategy that should be prioritised immediately and certainly before any decisions are made on structure plans or built form frameworks.
We also have to wonder whether Mr Slavin’s quick intervention in the above audio, cutting off the Jewell response, was that he perceived she was heading into ‘dangerous waters’ for the bureaucrats?
May 30, 2021
Hopeless!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[4] Comments
Save Glen Eira has published the following media release that we believe is well worth a read and consideration. Professor Michael Buxton’s comments are spot on and call into question Council’s track record on planning.
May 20, 2021
Time To Stand Up Councillors!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance[5] Comments
Year after year we have witnessed the farce that is called ‘public question’ time in Glen Eira. In the vast majority of cases no ‘answer’ is provided to the questioner. At best they receive a ‘response’. The question remains unanswered.
Residents have every right to expect that when a reasonable and relevant question is asked, council provides a clear and complete answer. Such occurrences are extremely rare.
This raises several fundamental issues of governance and the role of councillors. Given that the often carefully crafted and obtuse responses are delivered in councillors’ names, and signed off by the Mayor, then surely it is incumbent on these nine individuals to stand up and insist that questions are not simply fobbed off, but answered respectfully and truthfully. Only once in living memory has a councillor taken such a stance where he stated that he did not agree with the response.
One must therefore wonder:
- Who writes the responses? And who finally authorises each response?
- Do councillors actually get to see the questions before they are read out at the council meeting? If they do see the questions, when do they receive them?
- Do councillors have any say, or contribute in any manner to the responses? If not, why not?
- Why do councillors sit in chamber and never proffer any opinion/reaction to the response – even if they strongly disagree with what has been written?
- How does such councillor silence engender greater ‘community involvement’ and/or faith in open and transparent government, or does this achieve the direct opposite?
Wednesday night’s council meeting provided the perfect example of this farce. We will focus on one question in particular. In this instance, a resident asked the simple and basic question about the budget – what projects had been abandoned, deferred or delayed over the past 2 financial years and what savings had accrued as a result of such delays? Here is the audio of the question and the ‘response’. Interestingly, the sound quality of this recording is woeful. Given the millions that council has spent on technology, one should expect that public recordings provide decent audio versions.
Apart from the simple fact that this question remained unanswered, referring a resident to the budget and SRP (Strategic Resource) documents only compounds the problem of council’s lack of clear reporting. For anyone to try and make sense of what is proposed takes great effort and at the very least some modicum of accounting knowledge. Even more difficult is to remember what was contained in the previous year’s budget and to reconcile this with what is in the current budget. It should be council’s role to explain and expand on any variations. One example should suffice: In the 2020/21 SRP we find on page 8 the following sentence: Town Hall Refurbishment – total of $8M ($2M per annum from 2021/22 to 2024/25). In the current SRP (page 12) this has changed to: Town Hall Refurbishment and Essential Safety Measures: $4M from 2021/22 to 2023/24. What does this actually mean? Is this a ‘saving’ of $4M or $2M given the different years stated?
We then have the latest Quarterly Report which does state that the Carnegie Market development has been ‘deferred’ and that both the Bleazby and Stanley Street proposed multi-storey car parks are ‘under review’. Whilst it is true that no specific funding was allocated to these projects in the current budget, and hence no real ‘savings’ per se, council could have highlighted these decisions in both its response to the public question and in its budget papers.
More importantly, given that there are frequent mentions of ‘efficiencies’ in council’s budget papers, a simple table that itemises ‘savings’ in each department would not go astray. Residents might also be interested to know which departments have had their budgets cut and by how much! Until all the information is out there in a simple, straight forward manner, residents will remain confused, befuddled, and ignorant of what is really happening to their money and how it is being spent and/or wasted.
Nor does it help create a climate of transparency when all councillors simply sit there like silent statues and accept the tripe that parades as ‘answers’ to public questions!
Glen Eira Debates 