GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 12, 2024

Where Tone Is Everything!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

We have repeatedly contrasted how other councils approach dealings with the State Government and how their official communications vastly differ. In Glen Eira the criticisms and dare we say ‘outrage’ is muted and practically non-existent. Nor are residents truly informed as to what is going on behind the scenes.

This post concentrates on the draft Moorabbin Structure Plan released by the State Government in August 2024. Bayside publishes its proposed submission in the current agenda. Glen Eira merely presents a ‘summary’ of what officers will draft  (September 3rd council meeting) and then resolves to send this off without placing the eventual submission into the public domain.  The submissions are due on the 29th September.

Bayside does not hold back in informing residents as to what occurred. Their officer’s report states:

The VPA and DTP scheduled a meeting with officers from Glen Eira, Bayside and Kingston City Councils on Wednesday 21 August, informing that Phase 2 Engagement on a Draft Plan for Moorabbin would likely occur within the coming days, and that the Draft Plan would be released to Council officers and the public at this time. On 22 August, release of the Draft Plan was made via an article in the Age

All we learn from Glen Eira via the September 3rd report is:

The State Government has released the Draft Activity Centre Plans for Moorabbin and Chadstone for comment to both Council and the public on 22 August 2024.

No mention of the indecent haste; no mention of meetings and certainly no mention of the failure to inform council and the community directly.  Is this a minor oversight, an unfortunate lapse? Or does it signify Glen Eira’s refusal to even imply major criticisms of the State Government’s processes and autocratic actions?

Here are some other comments made by Bayside in their officer’s report –

Council officers are extremely disappointed in the manner that the VPA and DTP has and continues to engage on this important project. The limited time and information available to provide meaningful feedback has created significant scepticism and lack of trust in the State Government’s ability to appropriately plan or manage such projects. Specifically, the approach provides little confidence and raises significant concern about the State Governments failure to follow its own planning framework and principles of the State Governments own Planning and Environment Act 1987 which sets out the principles for a transparent planning process. Instead, the State Government, VPA and DTP are failing to openly engage with Council or the community, presenting all parties with plans for the Moorabbin Activity Centre without any technical reports, justification for the proposed approach, or any planning provisions.

There are grave concerns that the State Government is operating on the very outskirts of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with the process of this program going far beyond what orderly and proper planning seeks to achieve. (Bayside bolding)

The Activity Centres program continues the State Government’s continued erosion of the community and local government participation in the planning process. It is based on the State Governments false narrative that Councils are a critical block in the delivery of housing.

The VPA and DTP have informed Council officers that there will not be an open or transparent review process. The plan will be presented to a Standing Advisory Committee on papers only – considering submissions raised. This approach will remove any peer review or cross examination of experts. The State Government, VPA, and DTP are running a process where there is no accountability or opportunity to question their work (which has not been released to the public).

It is understood that the Activity Centre Program is a pilot program which will be used as a basis to replicate across the metropolitan area. The approach undertaken by the VPA and DTP does not provide Bayside, nor should it provide the remainer of the Local Government Sector across Victoria, with any confidence that a replicated approach could be efficiently or effectively rolled out. The localised issues and needs of communities will be different and the work undertaken has not given due regard to the community expectations.

The VPA and DTP continue to inform Bayside of the program rather than genuinely consult or collaborate which represents a lost opportunity for a collaborative approach which could genuinely achieve improved outcomes. Bayside sees the output to date by the VPA and DTP as not having any real value or improved planning outcome beyond a small uplift in building heights in the most sensitive part of the project area.

There are plenty of other statements we could have included. This officer’s report is then followed by a 25 page formal submission. If the Glen Eira submission gets to even 12 pages we will be surprised!

The Bayside submission includes discussion on:

  • The State Government’s abandonment of its own planning rules and processes
  • Whether the gov’s draft plan is in accord with the ’purpose’ of an Activity Centre Zone to facilitate commercial growth.
  • Affordable housing
  • Built form typologies and standards
  • Landscaping and trees
  • Infrastructure and open space
  • Transport and traffic
  • Environmentally Sustainable Design

(The full submission can be accessed at Item 10.3 via this link –  https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/16_september_2024_council_meeting_agenda.pdf)

The 3rd September Glen Eira report ignores most of the above categories. Not a word is stated in regard to: housing affordability; transport and traffic; Sustainable Design; actions/plans in accordance with the ‘purpose’ of an Activity Centre Zone. Whilst the 3rd September report is supposed to be a ‘summary’ only of what will eventuate in the actual submission, its lack of coverage and detail is concerning. Of greatest concern is the overall TONE of the report. Yes, we get verbage such as ‘concern’, a token acknowledgement of the ‘community’ but nothing to match what Bayside sees as vital to full transparency and democratic process.

This isn’t simply an issue of semantics. When we have a State Government that bulldozes through ill thought out planning changes as a political escape clause to camouflage its incompetence and indifference to the housing crisis, then it is incumbent on ALL councils to stand united and to call out such incompetence in the strongest terms. Glen Eira remains the odd man out – refusing to call a spade a spade, and thereby failing in its obligations to the thousands of residents (and future residents) who will be impacted by these spurious ‘reforms’.  As we’ve said before – why on earth is Glen Eira taking this course? What is really behind such mealy- mouthed responses?

 

August 20, 2024

Council’s Stand On Housing Targets

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[8] Comments 

After two months of total silence on the proposed state government housing targets, council has produced its formal submission on the matter. Readers should remember that Glen Eira has been told that its target will be 65,000 net new dwellings by 2051 – that is a doubling of the current housing numbers.

The submission does highlight what most other councils have complained about – ie.lack of detail; lack of strategic justification; lack of funding for essential infrastructure; importance of open space and the failure to consult with councils and community. But, unlike other councils’ submissions which are currently available, Glen Eira in both tone and content baulks at truly trying to protect the municipality. Here’s some of what other councils had to say in their submissions.

Stonnington

The Council’s attempts to engage in meaningful consultation with the State Government to ensure that the needs of the local community are met have been largely ignored.

On behalf of its local community, Council challenges the State Government to do better in future developments, in areas such as:

• High quality design of buildings, landscaping and public realm

• On-site provision of wraparound services to support community wellbeing

• the significant impacts to existing public facilities on which current and future residents will rely (for instance overshadowing of open space and recreation facilities)

• sufficient provision of useable, activated and safe open space and on-site amenity relative to the increase in population

• Embed decision-making processes that respond to site context, elevate sustainable design and value the voice of all stakeholders; increasing rigour through efficient and transparent planning approval processes, and at its core, the delivery of long term sustainable housing and services that are fit-for-purpose and support residents to thrive in the community.

Bayside

Council has grave concerns about the draft housing target for Bayside. The target of 31,000 additional homes has the potential to irrevocably change Bayside’s character and undermine the strategic planning framework that has been put in place tomanage and facilitate growth, whilst maintaining the liveability and character of themunicipality.

Council is concerned about the preparation, and release, of housing targets which vastly contradict current planning with no engagement with Councils, community or industry bodies. Furthermore, releasing these targets directly to the media without engagement or warning to industry bodies further fuels unnecessary concern in the community

Frankston

While Metropolitan and Major Activity Centres are locations identified for change and growth, the right balance must be struck to ensure that strategic planning for these centres ensures the right outcomes. It is important that development, open space and streets have access to sunlight, that built form is responsive to its environment, streets are of a human scale and that these centres remain liveable – the very essence of Melbourne, ‘the world’s most liveable city’.

Hobson’s Bay

The current Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme and its zones and overlays for the municipality, based on the Housing Capacity assessment from 2019, has a significantly lower capacity than the State’s June 2024 draft Housing Targets and at present, the Housing Targets cannot be accommodated in Hobsons Bay

The best that Glen Eira can come up with is – The submission argues that the housing targets of 65,000 additional new dwellings for Glen Eira should be revised down to 55,000 to reflect the capacity identified in Glen Eira’s Housing Strategy 2022. The Housing Strategy was underpinned by detailed neighbourhood character assessments and a housing capacity and demand analysis as well as extensive community consultation.

No real mention in the Glen Eira submission of: neighbourhood character, sunlight, or flooding risk (council’s overlays date back to 2005!!!!). Again, readers should remember that the Housing Strategy was voted in by the skin of its teeth and as far as consultation goes this was nothing but a sham when over 110 people attended a meeting at the town hall and voiced various objections. This did not even rate a mention in the summary report. Council also refused to release the community surveys. All we got was a bogus ‘summary report’.

Whilst council might not agree with 65,000 new dwellings, they are happy with 55,000 arguing that this is based on the ‘capacity’ analysis which accompanied the Housing Strategy. Several points need to be borne in mind here:

  • The capacity analysis was completed in 2021. How many sites have now been developed in the last three years which reduce the figure of 55,000?
  • What is totally ignored and unstated in the council submission is that the capacity analyses that landed on the figure of 55,000 was Scenario 3 which mooted the removal of the mandatory garden requirement for all 7000+ properties zoned GRZ. The subsequent amendment decided against this move. Hence, there is less land available for development and certainly less than the cited 55,000.
  • When the analysis was done, not all of the subsequent heritage listed properties were done,  dusted, and gazetted. Several amendments are still waiting to be gazetted. Again, this removes the ability to increase units per site and is again ignored in the latest council document.
  • To settle on a figure of 55,000 as suitable and appropriate is literally mind boggling and strategically impossible to justify given all the above.

To base planning completely on a fictional housing capacity figure as the state government insists upon is untenable. If this were the case, then in all probability most councils could have capacity for 100,000 new dwellings. It would be easy to achieve by simply allowing towers of 20 to 30 storeys in all activity centres and ignoring the environment, heritage, required infrastructure, and the contentious issue of ‘neighbourhood character’. Even a ‘reduction’ to 55,000 as council has done would spell disaster for many of our suburbs.

WHAT DOES THE SUBMISSION SAY?

On some of the most important issues Glen Eira sticks to the current pro-development ideology. Here are some of them –

Social/Affordable housing

Instead of fully supporting the introduction of a MANDATORY aspect to the provision of social/affordable housing, Glen Eira instead argues:

….Council cautions against introducing a system that makes all new housing more expensive to subsidise affordable housing and one that potentially makes it even more difficult to build new housing in a climate where land and construction costs are already very expensive.

In other words, nothing should be mandatory. Compare this approach to some of the other councils’ submissions –

Frankston – An easier, mandatory affordable housing mechanism must be considered as part of the Plan for Victoria, prioritising locations that are close to services, jobs and transport and in locations where there is a cluster of key workers, such as a health and education precinct.

Moonee Valley – argues for Mandatory planning controls in the Victorian Planning Provisions to deliver social and affordable housing at scale.

Mandatory controls versus the current ‘performance based’ process

It would appear that for Glen Eira mandatory controls should be severely limited. Again, this flies in the face of what other councils have put forward. In terms of deciding planning applications, Glen Eira comes down firmly on the side of ‘let’s have flexibility’ and let planning officers decide rather than adhering to mandatory/ prescriptive standards. Here’s how this is argued:

Council’s urban planners do an excellent job in negotiating improved outcomes on developments, and while some of what they do could be codified, their work sees better outcomes than if much of what they do were to be codified.

In other words, ‘we don’t want mandatory standards’ where it might impact on developers!!!!! Is this why these officers are incapable of ensuring more than a 5% social housing component, or a paltry 150 such dwellings in a yield of 3000+ for the Virginia Estate project? Why can other councils ‘negotiate’ up to 20% for a social housing component?

Data Presented in the Glen Eira Submission

Featured prominently in the Glen Eira document are several tables including the number of permits granted, as well as dwellings completed in various years. We take issue with what is presented and ask: is the divergence from publically available data deliberate? Where are the explanations for how this data has been compiled and accounted for?

Here are two tables where the figures are so skewed it is truly remarkable.

The first table is supposed to tell us how many developments of 10 or more dwellings were either completed, underway, or not yet started between 2018-2023. There is no breakdown of year to year. We have resorted to the state government’s Urban Design Development program which is based on data presented by council. This site presents what has been completed, or under construction, or ‘firm’ (ie with a permit) for various years. See: https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/udpmap/

We have concentrated solely on the results for 2022. According the map share data, the ‘completion’ rate is well above council’s claim of only 16 for a 5 year period. We have only bothered to look at some of the areas and our totals are well and truly above what council claims. Here is a shortened list for 2022 alone. We did not bother to go through other years ‘completion’ rates! If for simply one single year there have been at least 14 completed projects, then how on earth can council claim THAT FOR A 5 YEAR PERIOD THE TOTAL NUMBER IS 16?

27-29 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 31 dwellings

277-279 Centre road, Bentleigh – 36 dwellings

98-100 Truganini Road, Carnegie – 34 dwellings

1240-1248 Glen Huntly Road, Carnegie – 104 dwellings

285-287 Neerim road, Carnegie – 47 dwellings

54 Kambrook Road, Caulfield – 54 dwellings

80 Hotham Street, St.Kilda – 10 dwellings

96-100 Truganini road, Carnegie – 12 dwellings

22-26 Ridell Street, Elsternwick – 24 dwellings

34-36 Jersey Parade, Carnegie – 16 dwellings

1110-1112 Dandenong Road, Carnegie – 38 dwellings

29-31 Jersey parade, Carnegie – 10 dwellings

1.111 Normanby Road, Caulfield North – 283 dwellings

45-47 Kangaroo Road, Murrumbeena – 15 dwellings

The second council table is also open to query.

This is supposed to tell us how many permits were granted for 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. dwellings. We are told that for the year 2023, only ONE permit was granted for 5 dwellings. Then why does council’s own planning register reveal that there have been at least 3 such permits granted. Here are the addresses and the dates permits were granted – all according to the online planning register –

90-92 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 5 lot subdivision – permit issued 14/10/2023

76 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 (NOD -4/7/2023 and amended permit granted 18/8/2023)

14 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – permit issued 6/12/2023

All of this brings us to the central question: If we can’t trust council data, then how on earth can we trust their decision making? Or is all data simply geared to producing one single desired result? Who is accountable for this?

This has been an extremely long post for which we beg indulgence from our readers. However, it does go to the heart of what we believe is wrong in Glen Eira. Namely:

  • A refusal to take a far more critical and public stand against government policy as countless other councils continue to do
  • The continued publication of data that is both suspect and misleading and proffered as absolute ‘fact’
  • The continued preference to leave ‘control’ basically in the hands of officers, rather than see the introduction of essential mandatory standards
  • The failure to introduce any processes that can benefit the community – ie developer contribution levies, as well as opting for more than 5% for a social housing component in all major projects

Until residents can have absolute trust in this administration, or in councillors that are truly fulfilling their roles of oversight, questioning, and listening to the community, we will continue along this same path that ignores all that the community has stated again and again is fundamental to its ‘liveability’.

 

July 24, 2024

Consultation!!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

Last night’s council meeting unanimously passed the ‘updated’ Community Engagement Strategy/Policy. It was lauded as foundational to everything council did and how important community feedback was. There was not one reference to the quality of the ‘engagements’, the value of the continued pathetic surveys, nor the validity and accuracy of the various consultation summary reports.

We illustrate how skewed and manipulated these summary reports are by analysing the most recent effort – the fenced off leash area in the Caulfield Racecourse.

Here is a summary of what we’re told:

  • There were 368 comments made in the survey responses
  • There were 13 emails sent in as responses – none of the points made in these emails were cited or commented upon. In other words, we have absolutely no idea what these 13 emails stated!
  • The claim is that 62% were in favour of council’s proposal and 38% were opposed.

Here are some thoughts to ponder.

The vast majority of responses came (as expected) from dog owners. These participants used the racecourse more than any other cohort of users – ie 85% we’re told. So how are they likely to respond to the question asked – Do you support the proposal to formalise a fenced dog off-leash area in the north-west corner of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve?  Given that there is nothing in the survey to tell participants anything about the site chosen – ie size, distance from water, etc. how many of the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses can be taken at face value as support or opposition to the proposal? Over recent years there have been numerous public questions and requests to council to introduce fenced off leash areas. Council has responded that fencing does not fit in with their ‘open space’ planning.  Thus, how many of the ‘yes’ responses are a result of wanting a fence, but not necessarily what has been put forward?  Is the figure of 62% fully endorsing council’s plan, or simply endorsing the idea of a fenced area but not necessarily what is presented? We can’t tell based on how the question is presented and the lack of accompanying information.

We then get down to the nitty-gritty of the so called ‘Survey Data Analysis’ and this is assessed largely by the section called ‘Free Text Feedback Analysis’..  We are told:

 Of the 325 responses which provided free-text feedback to question two, 185 responses support the proposal and 140 responses do not support the proposal.

The implication of such a sentence is clear – participants support the council proposal!

We then get this breakdown of written responses –

Please remember that the ‘conclusion’ was 140 responses DO NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL!!!!! Is this figure accurate? How is this number arrived at? What criteria was used to interpret the responses? Or were these ‘interpretations’ simply done to ‘confirm’ overall support’ and hence council’s stated position?!!!!!

We have highlighted in orange all those response which might be interpreted as opposed to the proposal – acknowledging that we can only go on the ‘themes’ that council claims came up more than 10 times in the responses. Given that council refuses to publish the comments, as they used to do, we have no idea of what was actually stated by participants!

The highlighted sections represent those responses that we are fairly confident might indicate opposition to the plan. The figures are: 94 + 53 + 22 + 19 + 14 + 13 + 10 + 6 + 5 + 3 = 239. Yet we’re told  that the total number of opposed comments only equals 140!!!!! Tallying up even the first two categories alone (ie 94 +53) gives us a total of 147 and not the 140 cited!!! Subtracting some of the ambiguous ‘themes’ such as ‘dog training’, or ‘Exercise with dog’ still leaves us with numbers well and truly above the claimed 140!!!

The very act of enumerating ‘themes’ is a pointless exercise, as does counting  the number of mentions. Unless the full comments are published we do not have any idea as to what the participants actually prioritised or thought.

There are plenty of other contentious ‘conclusions’ in this summary. Is it simply incompetence on the part of the report’s authors, or is such skewing of results deliberate and orchestrated?

Until we have a set of councillors who actually bother to analyse what is put in front of them, and who have the courage to call out such manipulative practices, then community consultation is Glen Eira will remain a farce.

 

July 21, 2024

The Downward Spiral Continues!

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

There are several items in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting which illustrate the utter cowardice and complicity of the Glen Eira administration with the State government’s ad hoc and appalling planning processes and plans. In addition there is the continued watering down of consultation protocols that further limit transparency and, most importantly, community involvement in decision making.

We will focus on these two separate items.

  1. Proposed Government Planning for the Moorabbin Major Activity Centre

Item 8.3 consists of 4 pages outlining the ‘preliminary/draft’ Moorabbin plans. Two of these pages consist of the maps created by the government. The other two pages are spin and summaries of what the government has stated as its goals. Throughout this verbage there is not one single criticism or even analysis of what is proposed. Instead, we are repeatedly told that:

Council officers are actively involved in these discussions

Council officers will continue to be involved in the briefings with the VPA/DTP and ensure appropriate feedback is provided on the proposed controls and the respective Activity Centre plans. Feedback will align with Council’s priorities and more importantly advocate to be coordinated with funded infrastructure improvements to ensure our communities are not disadvantaged unfairly.

It is anticipated that a significant level of change in these activity centres will be proposed with further changes to be seen in the surrounding catchment areas as depicted in the figures within this report.

Moorabbin Activity Centre planning does not merely impact on Glen Eira. It also includes Bayside and Kingston.

Here is what the Bayside officer report stated on the issue. All quotes come from the 21st May agenda from that council. Please read carefully and ask yourselves which council is really standing up for its residents?

… there are concerns with the manner these projects are being undertaken, and the lack of genuine engagement with the affected councils

The program has been given an un-realistic deadline of implementation of planning controls into the planning scheme by December 2024. Council Officers have had minimal engagement with the project with the following key questions unable to be addressed by the VPA:

• What boundary of the activity centre is being used?

• What are the proposed planning controls to be used?

• What mechanisms for the collection of development contributions will be used to fund infrastructure triggered by the program?

• What technical studies are being undertaken to inform the work?

• How will the community and Council be meaningfully engaged in the process?

Until now, Council officers have had no meaningful engagement with this project, with no information forthcoming in response to any concerns

As this report critically points out, increasing population and development growth in these areas will only exacerbate the need for more infrastructure and community services. Victoria is already witnessing the amounting pressures on our public health system and ambulance services – a result of under resourcing and funding by the State Government. There is real concern that proper planning will not be accounted for as part of these Major Projects and impact the liveability of our current and future residents.

Council fundamentally questions where strategic justification for these targets has arisen from and whether the processes being led for these major projects are consistent with theoutcomes of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the objectives of Planning in Victoria,

Council has previously raised concerns with the SRLA, Victorian Planning Authority and Department Transport and Planning regarding the process, governance and Council’s role within these major projects being led by the State Government. At present, Council has been mostly kept informed and ‘drip fed’ decisions rather than having any real ability to input into these processes and decisions being made.

There are also major concerns regarding the State Government’s agenda to ‘fast-track’ these projects. Proper planning takes time, resources and input at the local scale – this includes both local government and the community. Fast-tracking these major projects only further restricts Council and the community’s input and role in these processes.

Questions

  • Why is it that on the same issue, one council can have an officer report that is highly critical of what is happening and Glen Eira has taken 2 months to come up with a report that basically says nothing and is silent on the processes and impacts of the government proposal? Add this issue to the total deafening silence on the published housing targets of 65,000- net new dwelling by 2051, then this just confirms how little our administration cares about liveability and advocating for residents in Glen Eira.
  • Can we really trust the officers and their stated ‘involvement’ in any discussions? Are councillors informed of what is being discussed? Do they ever see hard copy printouts of discussion points or ‘resolutions’? Or are councillors, as usual, kept in the dark?
  • The real question is – what does council have to gain by being fully complicit with this government? Who is this administration really representing?
  • Community Engagement Strategy

The current Community Engagement Strategy, adopted in 2021, was supposed to run until 2026. So we now have a new strategy 2 years before the current one is set to expire. Why? What’s the rush? What’s the purpose of introducing a new strategy so far ahead of time?

Once the proposed draft is examined, we can achieve some understanding of why this administration is pushing for a new strategy. Put simply, it is to further reduce community input into council decision making.

The key paragraph of the new policy is to be found in these officer comments :

As the updated Policy does not substantively change the intent of the previous Policy, and was co-designed with the Community Engagement Advisory Committee, Council will undertake an ‘Inform’ level community engagement program.

The most important word here is ‘inform’. This is a reference to the IAPP standards of community engagement/consultation where we have ‘inform’, ‘consult’, ‘involve’ and ‘collaborate’ as the steps on the ladder of full and meaningful consultation with the community. ‘Inform’ is the lowest level of consultation. It basically says, ‘here is what we will do and we’re simply telling you about it’. End of story.

When the initial strategy came to light, and included which plans, issues would occasion what sort of consultation, councillors passed the resolution that major issues such as structure plans, important infrastructure, etc. would go well beyond the ‘inform’ or ‘consult’ stage that was initially proposed for all consultations – apart from those  mandated by legislation. Councillor then voted for this resolution:

Since the above resolution was passed we have not had ONE SINGLE ‘involve’ or ‘collaborate’ for any of the structure plans.

But what is even more alarming in the new proposed draft is the complete EXCLUSION of any link between projects and the anticipated level of consultation.  We have no idea which issues will have more than ‘inform’ or ‘consult’ associated with them.

We have written previously on how other councils have designated their intended level of consultation. See: https://gleneira.blog/2021/01/07/consultation-2-2/. With this new draft all we get are motherhood statements, vague promises, and nil detail.

Here is one page from the ‘framework’ document. Please note:

  • ‘Engagement Level’ has now nothing whatsoever to do with how council will consult, much less the level of consultation according to the IAPP standards. It now simply becomes a question of how long the consultation will last!

We then get another page that supposedly outlines the methods of consultation.

Once again we have no idea which projects will involve which levels of consultation. The stated methodology also leaves much to be desired. For example: the community engagement committee is stated as having input into the ‘consult’ and ‘involve’ standards. To the best of our knowledge and according to the minutes of this committee, not once did this committee produce any ‘recommendations’ or even discuss the various draft structure plans. They certainly have had no input whatsoever into the framing, analyses and testing of the atrocious survey questions that are continually produced by this council.

The final outrage is that in the actual draft policy we find this table that is supposed to outline the level of consultation. The very inclusion of a sentence such as ‘Level to be selected depending on the complexity of the matter’ is the loophole that allows this administration to do whatever it likes, when it likes. In other words, because the standard isn’t in black and white, council can neatly side step the need for ‘involve’ and ‘collaborate’. This is both dishonest and devious!!!!!

We have previously shown how other councils specifically itemise the task and the appropriate level of consultation. None of this exists in this new proposal. It represents nothing more than a continued watering down of the fundamentals of sound governance and democratic process. Sadly, it also means that residents, and probably councillors are once again sidelined as much as is legally possible. What a sad state of affairs and what a self serving administration we truly have.

 

May 27, 2024

More Cow-Towing To The MRC!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

At last week’s council meeting councillors unanimously resolved to seek ministerial approval to advertise the Caulfield Major Activity Centre amendment. To refresh our memory here is some of the history surrounding this issue:

  • The final structure plan was decided in September 2022 and scraped through on the casting vote of Magee – as has happened with several other major structure plans. Those voting against the plan were Esakoff, Zyngier, Pennicuik and Szmood. Concerns included the proposed heights, the activity centre zoning, parking, etc. The final resolution accepted: one 20 storey height and other precincts ranging up to 12 storeys. All heights were discretionary with none cited as mandatory.
  • 8 storey preferred height above heritage in Derby Road
  • The accompanying background document from the first version of the structure plan by Charter, Keck and Kramer stated that the various precincts would house 8700 new residents and that the vast majority of new dwellings would consist of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments.

So what has changed to have the four previously opposing councillors now voting unanimously for the draft proposals? Nothing we believe has really changed and the proposed schedule to the new Activity Centre zone falls far short of dealing with the concerns of both residents and the four councillors previously named.

If we examine the schedule closely we find:

  • A paltry 5% for every 20 dwellings to be social/affordable housing. When you are anticipating around 4000+ net new dwelling that makes it only 200 of these residences. Pathetic – especially when we are told time and again how lacking in social/affordable housing this municipality is.
  • No mention of overshadowing and sunlight requirements for open space and/or surrounding properties.
  • Reduction in car parking requirements
  • No consideration of the impact on existing and proposed new open space with the substantial mooted increase in population.
  • Review rights ONLY if the nominated heights and/or setbacks are exceeded in upcoming proposals. Even this is not across the board but only for specific precincts. It basically means that the proposed heights are now a given. Furthermore development plans only have to be advertised ‘for public comment’ and council is required to consider them rather than allow formal objections.
  • The schedule repeatedly mentions ‘diversity’ of dwellings, yet we know that the forecast is for over 90% to be single and 2 bedroom high rise apartments.
  • No mandatory height limit or setback requirements
  • As with everything this council does we have the magical get out of jail phrase of ‘where appropriate’ added to the objectives for decent landscaping and parking.The sentence which best sums up this nonsense is: To encourage the retention and enhancement of existing mature vegetation where appropriate.
  • Once again we find the phrase ‘generally in accordance’ with any future development plan. As we’ve seen with Caulfield Village this isn’t worth the paper it’s written on given that the Incorporated Plan nominated 1100 net new dwellings. Once finished Caulfield Village will exceed 2000! It is carte blanche once again for the MRC when we find the following sentence included in the schedule – Where there is an inconsistency between a provision of this schedule and the development plan, the provisions of the development plan prevail.

Activity Centre Zones (ACZ)

This is the first ACZ zone to be introduced into Glen Eira. It is therefore important to understand and compare what other councils have achieved with similar zoning. Below we feature the gazetted (ie approved) schedules that other councils have achieved in the past 20 months. We quote verbatim from the various schedules and simply ask – why don’t these conditions also apply in Glen Eira?

BANYULE – amendment C162 November 2022

Overshadowing and Pedestrian Amenity

Development should be designed to avoid casting shadows on the defined Solar Access Area shown on the Framework Plan and Precinct Plans for Precincts 1 and 3. Generally, buildings should not overshadow the footpath on the south side of this part of the Main Street between 11am and 2pm on 22 June.

Development should be designed to avoid casting shadows on the Town Square as shown on the Framework Plan and Precinct Plans for Precincts 1 and 3 between 11am and 2pm on 22 June.

DAREBIN – Amendment C182 – August 2023

The agreement must provide for an Affordable Housing Contribution defined as:

1. The transfer of land that has the demonstrated capacity to support the development of 10 per cent of the site’s total residential yield as affordable housing dwellings, to a registered housing agency at nil consideration for the Agency to develop and rent and/or sell completed dwellings to eligible households. An average 65 square metres /unit is proposed to be used to calculate the amount of land to be provided; or 2. 6 per cent of dwellings provided at 30 per cent discount to a registered housing agency;

Street wall height requirements

Street wall heights must not exceed the maximum measurements specified in clause 5.0 of this schedule

Overshadowing requirements for public open space

Development must not overshadow:

– more than 50 per cent of the primary public open space within the precinct between the hours of 11am and 2pm on 21 June.

– Any part of the Preston City Oval (playing surface and surrounding open spaces) between the hours of 11am and 2pm on 21 June.

– Areas of the public open space north of the Preston City Oval playing surface to the southern edge of the inner footpath and south side of Cramer Street (including the barbeque/picnic area in the north-eastern corner) between the hours of 11am and 2pm on 21 June

Moonee Valley – Amendment c207 – January 2022

Built form above the street wall height must cast no additional overshadowing between 11am and 2pm on September 22 to open spaces and streets identified with a spring equinox solar control on relevant precinct maps. The spring equinox solar controls apply to the length of the southern footpath on Holmes Road, Puckle Street and Alexandra Avenue, measured from the property boundary to the existing kerb. A permit cannot be granted to vary this requirement.

Built form above the street wall height must cast no additional overshadowing between 11am and 2pm on June 21 to open spaces identified with a winter solstice solar control on relevant precinct maps. A permit cannot be granted to vary this requirement.

A permit cannot be granted for buildings and works which exceed the maximum building height specified in Table 1.

Table 1 – Mandatory building heights
Sub-PrecinctMandatory maximum building height (excluding basement)
9A20 metres
9C11 metres
9E14 metres
9H32 metres

Geelong – Amendment C431 – March 2023

Table 8. Mandatory overshadowing requirements for existing and proposed public open space and the proposed Geelong Station Forecourt.

Austin Park

Johnstone Park

Customs Park

Transvaal Square

Steampacket Gardens

No additional overshadowing. 10am-3pm 22 June

Proposed open space

Proposed Geelong Station Forecourt

No additional overshadowing beyond a shadow that would be cast by a wall on a boundary of not more than 8 metres. 10am-3pm 22 June

Conclusion

So we now wait for the formal consent to advertise this draft. It will head off to a planning panel where the chances of residents’ concerns being addressed and ameliorated will be minimal. That is what invariably happens once structure plans scrape through by the skin of their teeth and councillors permit sub-standard planning to end up at planning panels. This whole exercise is merely another example of how little Glen Eira council is prepared to say ‘no’ to anything associated with the Melbourne Racing Club.

 

April 12, 2024

What A Stuff Up!

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

March 23, 2024

Heritage: Bayside Versus Glen Eira

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
1 Comment 

Bayside council completed a Panel Hearing during February 2024 for its heritage proposed amendment C192.  The report is not yet available. What is significant in this council’s approach to preserving heritage when compared to Glen Eira is the insistence on the ‘value’ of heritage to the entire community.  The Glen Eira approach has simply stated that because council has identified certain areas as suitable for ‘housing growth’ heritage can be overlooked!

Bayside council’s submission to the recent planning panel is fascinating when seen in the light of Glen Eira’s approach.  Our council tells us repeatedly that there could be serious ‘social’ and ‘economic’ drawbacks if certain sites are allowed to remain in the existing heritage overlays. They can therefore be removed. Bayside counters such views with the following extracts from its formal submission. We’ve uploaded several sections from this document.  Please note the differences in approach and what this means for heritage preservation.

 

March 20, 2024

Heritage Versus Development!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

Despite persistent claims from councillors and this administration that preserving heritage is vitally important, last night’s council meeting provided conclusive proof that in the choice between facilitating development or preserving heritage listed sites, heritage would always lose.  

The issue surfaced with the proposed amendment to the Elsternwick heritage study which is now seeking ministerial approval for advertising. Repeated time and time again throughout the various attachments we find the following (verbatim) paragraph:

Including these sites within a Heritage Overlay would negatively impact on potential future housing growth within locations that Council has resolved to allocate to housing growth. This inconsistency has social and economic implications. When balancing Council’s adopted strategy for housing growth opportunities in these locations with heritage protection, it is considered that in these two instances, housing growth should prevail.

We note that there is no explanation of what these ‘social and economic implications’ are, nor how they are assessed and verified. Surely the preservation of heritage buildings has its own wider,  ‘social’ benefits?

All of this stems back to 2019 when council attempted to have amendment C203 accepted. The Minister or department decided at that time that not all the nominated precincts be included because this would impede development. A department letter to council stated:

“At this stage it is not considered appropriate to apply the Heritage Overlay more extensively in Elsternwick given that Council is yet to seek authorisation for a planning scheme amendment to implement the Elsternwick Structure Plan. Doing so could, by default, lead to heritage controls becoming the primary driver for development outcomes within the Elsternwick Activity Centre.

Council’s response? Not a whimper! No public questioning of the legality and common sense in 2019 and not again in 2024. Council meekly accepted the decision and has now enshrined this in the latest amendment attempt. The result is the continued loss of heritage buildings in Glen Eira, and particularly in Elsternwick.

When Amendment C203 finally went to a planning panel, the members were not averse to stating clearly their disapproval of the imposed conditions. We have uploaded two pages from the panel report at the conclusion of this post. Their conclusions questioned the legality and evidence for the exclusion of the nominated precincts. They found that the amendment:

1. Is counter to Planning Practice Notes 1, 58 and 60 and that

2. Development potential is not a valid criterion when considering heritage potential.

3. Development potential is NOT prioritised above any other criteria in the planning provisions

4. No valid justification has been provided for the exclusion of the precincts

5. Contravenes Plan Melbourne where heritage is said to be ‘fundamental’ (Clause 4.4.3) to the state’s cultural identity.

Last night’s officer’s report  confirms what an absolute shambles planning, and particularly heritage has been in Glen Eira. The latest amendment is simply trying to largely rectify the indifference and errors of the past when countless streets containing confirmed heritage overlays were rezoned as Residential Growth Zones (RGA and 4 storeys) when they should not have been! Here’s what the latest heritage report states:

The application of the RGZ in these almost exclusively residential Heritage Overlay areas is contrary to the guidance of PPN91 (Planning Practice Note 91 – Using the Residential Zones), which identifies that there will be difficulty in reconciling the conflicting objectives of substantial housing change (through the application of the RGZ) and the conservation of existing buildings (by applying the Heritage Overlay).

In other words, the introduction of the residential zones in 2013 was a disaster for heritage. Many sites in these heritage overlays have now been demolished and replaced with 4 storey apartment blocks as a result. We remind readers that we are yet to see a full and decent review of this zoning!!!!!

Our argument is simple. If something is determined to be worthy of heritage listing then it MUST take precedence over development potential. Council chooses the alternative – development always comes first!

The vote last night was 7 to 2. The opposing councillors were Esakoff and Parasol and NOT because they were against the removal of so many heritage sites, but because they wanted one nominated dwelling removed from being included in the overlay, even though it is surrounded by heritage cited properties! So much for giving a damn about heritage in Glen Eira!!!!!

Here’s the Planning Panel report comments –

 

February 25, 2024

Tree Protection: The Need For Full Transparency

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

Council is proposing a new Local Law designed to protect not only SIGNIFICANT trees, but also canopy trees on private property which qualify under height and width criteria. This is certainly an improvement and should protect more existing trees. However, how many existing canopy trees will actually be covered by the proposal(s) depends to a large extent on how well the upcoming Local Law is written and what is its true intent. What also needs to be considered is to what extent all decisions will be fully transparent and who will make these decisions. Will it be left entirely in the hands of officers, or will councillors have the final say as in numerous other councils on which permit applications are granted or refused?

The officer’s report includes the following paragraphs on this last point:

The above is very ambiguous. We are told that officers will presumably undertake the initial assessment when there has been a permit application, and this is fair enough. The final paragraph however clearly states that there will be an ‘internal review process’ but only for those applicants who have requested a review. Thus, if a permit has been granted, then there is no need for a review! Officer’s will have made the decision and that’s the end of it with no councillor involvement, or no objection rights by anyone it would seem.

The paragraph continues that a report will be prepared but this is dependent on whether or not the applicant has chosen to seek a review as stated previously. What remains unclear is whether the officer report will also cover applications that have been granted a permit ‘internally’ and whether the tabled report is there simply for ‘noting’ or for councillors to make actual decisions? Even with the existing significant Tree register local law, councillors are sidelined and all decisions are made by officers. There is therefore no transparency and no accountability for decision making. We suspect that the proposed new law will be the same. Surely the onus on council is to clear up any ambiguity  and to ensure residents that trees will be fully protected.

There are other issues with the proposals as well. Here is our take on these:

Clause 2(b)of the proposed Local Law states that a permit is required to prune or direct, authorise or allow to be pruned a Classified Tree or a Canopy. But we then get the ‘exemption’ that this clause does not apply if Council is notified within five (5) working days of the commencement of the pruning.

 This may sound quite innocuous, but it has major repercussions. Why the 5 days grace? Most pruning would be concluded well within 5 days. If an applicant then calls council and says ‘I’ve pruned my tree’ what evidence exists that the pruning was in accordance with the 10% maximum reduction of canopy allowed? What evidence do we have that the branches were less than 10cm in width?

Bayside, by contrast, has processes that would ensure the pruning is done legally. They insist on:

  • Photos taken BEFORE and AFTER
  • That the work be done by a qualified arborist
  • That the arborist has to sign off by certifying the work done.

NONE of the above applies in Glen Eira!!! This leaves a huge loop hole that can easily be taken advantage of.

Compounding the problem we then get this additional clause regarding pruning:

Subclause (2)(b) does not apply to pruning, which is carried out to the following specifications—

(a) up to a maximum of 10% of the Classified Tree’s or Canopy Tree’s total volume within 12 calendar Months

We assume that this means there can be numerous episodes of lopping throughout a 12 month period. But given that no permit is required we again lack evidence that only 10% has been lopped? Nor are we told whether or not each lopping requires council to be notified – even within the 5 day period.

One other change to the current Local Law is also worth commenting upon. Please read the following carefully:

Questions abound. Consider this scenario – No permit has been applied for. A neighbour complains to council  that a large canopy tree is being removed next door. According to the current Local Law, the property could be entered by a council officer and inspected. With the proposed new law, this could only happen if the owner of the tree has ALREADY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. If he/she hasn’t, then they the new law does not provide them with the power to investigate and potentially call a halt to the tree removal!

CONCLUSION

Whilst these proposed changes are definitely an improvement and an attempt to protect our existing canopy trees, they simply do not go far enough. We fully accept that there may be situations where a tree presents a major health risk due to storms, etc and should be lopped/removed in the name of safety. But, there are far too many loopholes in the proposed new law that can be exploited. All that is required is that clauses such as Bayside and other councils have is included and that the essential role of monitoring evaluations occurs by councillors. What role councillors will play needs to be spelt out clearly. This has not been done.

Leaving everything in the hands of officers does not engender full transparency and accountability in decision making. Bayside for example also publishes on a regular basis a list of permits granted for the removal of trees. There is nothing in this proposed law which will ensure that decisions on whether to refuse or grant a permit will ultimately be made in the full council chamber so that all residents can see and listen to the evidence.

ONE FINAL POINT. All of the above of course is dependent on whether a planning permit for the site has been granted. The permit could and often does include permission to remove existing trees. Given that planning permits are largely decided by officers and that at least 15 objections are required before the application can go to council, this again places enormous power in the hands of officers.

 

February 4, 2024

Landsdcaping & The Housing Strategy

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

Tuesday’s council agenda features the latest version of the Housing Strategy. Readers will remember that there was a huge outcry surrounding the proposal that all GRZ sites would have the mandatory garden requirement removed. On a positive note, this idea has now been abandoned!!!!!

Readers should also remember the persistent claims that council is fully committed to improving landscaping, increasing tree canopy across all of Glen Eira, and implementing the Urban Forest Strategy. The claim then was that with the removal of the mandatory garden requirement this would ensure better landscaping opportunities. So what has council done now to ensure that our tree canopy increases and all principles behind climate change and the growth of the Urban Forest is well on track?

Included below are the pages from the agenda (p144-145) which outline all the new landscaping proposals. The writing in red (and crossed out) shows what is currently in the planning scheme and the green notations are the new recommendations.

Please notice the following:

  • The stated objective on page 144 is to: To strengthen landscape character across Glen Eira. If this is the case, then why are we told that apartments are ‘excluded’!!!!!! Surely apartments, and all GRZ and RGZ areas which would feature apartments are equally part of Glen Eira and deserve some decent landscaping?
  • Gone entirely is the following from the planning scheme: The provision of a minimum of one 8 metre high canopy tree for every 8 metres of the front boundary. There is also the requirement for canopy trees in rear setbacks as stated with the following: The provision of a minimum of one 6 metre high canopy tree for every 8 metres of rear boundary in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the General Residential Zone. However, the resulting new schedules to the NRZ and GRZ zoning completely alter the above standards. All that we now get are these miniscule requirements –

FOR SOME SITES ZONED NRZ the schedules state:

Retain or provide canopy cover equivalent to at least 22 per cent of the site area, including at least one medium canopy tree within the front setback with a minimum mature height equal to the height of the roof OR THE EVEN WORSE ‘STANDARD’ OF – In addition to the requirements of B13, retain or provide at least one medium canopy tree within the front setback.

 FOR THE GRZ AND RGZ ZONING ALL WE GET IS – In addition to the requirements of B13, retain or provide at least one canopy tree within the front setback

Please note that NO MENTION IS MADE OF REAR GARDEN REQUIREMENTS!!!!! Furthermore,  given the reduction of both front, and rear setbacks in some of the proposed schedules, the end result can only be a further deterioration of our tree canopy and the sabotage of all council climate change policies.

Instead of using this opportunity to increase permeability in the GRZ, or at least maintain RESCODE street setbacks, council has forgotten all its promises, its policies, and its commitment to genuine climate change strategies. In short, this new version of the Housing Strategy, is nothing more than a return to the future in that single zoning and their schedules cover all GRZ and RGZ zones whilst others in the NRZ have increased site coverage, and a reduction in their current permeability requirements. In short, we are going backwards in order to cram as many new dwellings into Glen Eira as possible, and regardless of whether or not we need this development!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »