We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
The table included in the above however is the dead give away! On every single important variable council has gone backwards since last year – and in some instances, dramatically! For example:
Overall performance has dropped from 69 to 65
Making community decisions – 62 to 57
Community consultations 60 – 57
Overall council direction – 53-50
Value for money – 65-61
Whilst it is true that in comparison to the metropolitan and state average, Glen Eira does okay, that is irrelevant when we consider that for the past decade at least, town planning, population growth and consultation has shown the largest discrepancy between the importance that people place on these categories and their perception(s) of actual performance. Glen Eira excels in regularly having a 15 to 22 point gap for these categories. So knowing all the areas that council needs to improve on for at least the past decade, we are continuing to go backwards! Put bluntly, council has achieved nothing in terms of addressing its well known shortcomings!
The following screen dumps make this absolutely clear!
And there is also this ‘warning’ –
Nothing would be clearer! Residents are fed up with poor strategic planning, lack of genuine consultation, and importantly, the lack of ‘value for money’ that their hard earned cash is wasted upon!
Presented below are the comments made by Esakoff and Zyngier on the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan at the last council meeting. Unlike the majority of those who spoke in favour of the draft, at least in these comments the ‘problems’ are clearly identified instead of resorting to generalities and spin.
If one counts the number of times that various councillors used the phrase ‘better controls’ or ‘better managed growth’ or ‘better planning’ in terms of the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan, one should conclude that the draft is god’s gift to planning acumen and a truly wonderful improvement for residents. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We do currently have interim controls via a Design & Development Overlay in Bentleigh that will not expire until December 31st, 2024. Whilst Amendment C228 changed the DDO to only include the commercial and mixed use, it begs the question of why the current draft structure plan sees fit to include some residential rezonings in its borders. Surely this flies in the face of Amendment c228? Regardless of this anomaly, the existing DDO still represents a vast improvement on what is currently proposed. It stipulates:
Mandatory height controls along all of Centre Road
Lower heights in metres for equivalent number of storeys to what is now proposed
Far greater setbacks than in the current draft for certain conditions
Here is what the existing DDO consists of:
Readers will see: Nothing above 5 storeys. The current version is up to 8 storeys DISCRETIONARY
To therefore argue that the current draft structure plan will provide ‘better controls’ is beyond belief. Nor is it acceptable to argue that without rear setbacks for commercial sites that are not heritage listed that abutting heritage places will be better protected – as Athanasopolous would like us to believe.
So what has changed in the space of 15 months? Why is council so gung-ho on creating strategies that are far, far worse than what currently exist? What communication has taken place between officers and the department? Were councillors ever present at these meetings, or have they been privy to any of the communications? Why aren’t such communications made public or, at the very least, a report on what has taken place in such meetings?
Even if we accept that population will increase by approx 2000 over the next 15 years, how does this justify the proposed changes? And what guarantee is there that with increased apartments there will be more affordable housing? According to the latest census results, we already have 9+% of dwellings standing vacant across the municipality. Why? Are these properties that are already too expensive? Owned by foreign investors? Land banking until prices rise by developers?
No councillor at Tuesday night’s meeting had the courage to state the bleeding obvious! Zhang went on about how wonderful it was that streets currently zoned as RGZ (4 storeys) would now be reduced to 2 storeys because they are in a heritage overlay. She of course doesn’t mention how many four storey developments already exist in these streets, nor how many sites will be ‘upgraded’ to go from 2 storeys to 3 and 4 storey heights. When these are added up, they far exceed the number of properties that have had a reduction in height! What this also reveals is that the original introduction of the residential zones in 2013 was a disaster. No area under a heritage overlay should have been zoned for 4 storeys. And neither should all those properties that lie in the flood plain (SBO overlay) been zoned for three storeys or even included in the borders of the activity centre. . Of course, this was all ignored by the ‘guru’ of planning (Akehurst) and his complicit councillors!
The machinations and inconsistencies of this planning department continue unabated. There are numerous allusions to a ‘transport and assessment’ study and potential resulting actions. This document has not been made available and we doubt that even councillors have been provided with the opportunity to clap eyes on it. So once again, councillors are forced to make decisions without having all the information at their fingertips. The inconsistency is that for the Elsternwick structure plan, there was an accompanying traffic report. Why the difference? It simply is not good enough that residents will have all the requisite information only when the formal amendment is advertised. This approach entirely invalidates any attempt at genuine consultation. If other councils such as Port Phillip can publish all their documentation at the first stage of consultation, we see no reason why Glen Eira can’t – except of course to keep the plebs (and councillors?) as ignorant as possible until it is too late.
Much has to change in Glen Eira if this council is to live up to its stated charter of full ‘transparency’ and accountability.
PS: To put some historical perspective onto what’s been happening in Bentleigh, we’ve revisited an important VCAT decision (17th October, 2017) which granted a permit for a 7 storey development in Centre Road.
What’s fascinating about this decision, isn’t so much the outcome, but the arguments presented by the Council rep. The application was refused by council and thus ended up at VCAT. We quote verbatim what council had to say to support its refusal –
It was further put that guidelines relating to setbacks, height and amenity create further impetus to provide a more sensitive transition between the review site and the surrounding residential hinterland. Council put that Objective 5.1.2(a) of the Urban Design Guidelines seeks ‘To ensure the activity centre provides a graduated transition between different building scales and uses’. It was further put that it is Council’s view that the emphasis on the transitional role of buildings at the edge of an activity centre is greater in the Urban Design Guidelines.
· However, Council put to us that the proposed development is inappropriate at seven storeys because of the limitations imposed on the site due to the adjoining residential hinterland, the provisions of the DDO8 and the height and scale of development on the immediately abutting land.
· We make the observation that when assessed against broad strategic policies, the site is well located for redevelopment. However, Council put that the proposed development is in conflict with the vision of the DDO8 which establishes a preferred height of 5 storeys.
Council further submitted that the proposed development exceeds the maximum preferred height by 2 storeys and over 5 metres.
fails to perform a transitional function, which will necessarily cause a jarring impact at the edge of the Urban Village.
COMMENTS: So, in 2017 council was concerned about ‘transition’ – especially to the residential areas. With the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan this has gone out the window, where there is no problem with a potential 5 storey (and more if exceeding the preferred heights) of ‘transition’. How laughable! Furthermore, council’s preferred maximum height of 5 storeys has also gone out the winder by 2 storeys. That’s what ‘discretionary’ heights can produce!
Appropriate transitions remain relevant in all planning. In Glen Eira and with this draft, this no longer appears to be the case.
In August last year Cade voted against the Carnegie structure plan. She has also voted against the housing strategy but was absent for the determinative vote. On East Village she voted in favour of mandatory heights. So what has now changed? Why are we suddenly seeing a trend in Cade’s voting that largely supports the admin’s and planning department’s agenda of high rise and more and more development in our activity centres?
Cade’s voting patterns since being elected deputy mayor are very interesting. Together with Athanasopolous and Magee she voted AGAINST the refusal of a permit for an application in Grafton Street Elsternwick. Other interesting voting patterns include:
Cade moved the motion for the Bentleigh Structure Plan
She voted against reducing the height of one section in the Caulfield South Activity Centre
Admittedly she has voted against various permit applications (ie Bentleigh RSL in Huntley Road) but on all the recent major strategic planning strategies, she has been an ardent supporter – which contrasts strongly with her previous position(s) on these matters. So we have to ask: Could this possibly have anything to do with her election as deputy mayor and earning the princely sum of $59,659 PLUS 9.5% p.a for a grand total of just under $66,000? Or has she undergone some religious ‘conversion’? If so, then she needs to explain this.
Cade’s motion of support for the draft on Tuesday night, was staggering in its deception, the obvious pre-arranged Dorothy Dix questioning of Torres, and failure to disclose the full picture in so many instances – ie the sins of omission! Nor can it be seen as a genuine councillor contribution to the debate when much of Cade’s version of events mirrored precisely what appeared in the July edition of the Glen Eira News – basically, ‘don’t blame us, it’s all the government’s fault’! This has now become council’s escape clause for their repeated failures and refusal to (1) listen to the community and (2) adhere to sound strategic planning principles that actually enhance and preserve what residents see as vital aspects of residential amenity.
Here is what Cade stated. Please listen carefully.
“The Victorian government sets the agenda………”. True, but there is still plenty of scope within planning scheme for councils to create their own strategies. Approximately 25% of all planning schemes allow councils scope to introduce what they see as necessary for their communities. That’s why heaps of other councils have had structure plans for at least the past 15 years. That’s why other councils have implemented both ESD and WSUD (environment & water) in their planning schemes. Here in Glen Eira we are still waiting for a community infrastructure levy on developers, a car parking levy, or a WSUD policy – despite all being promised in 2016. In short, there is plenty that councils can do if they have the will. Whether or not a council’s proposed strategies will be approved by the Minister down the line is irrelevant at this early stage of structure planning. The focus should be on implementing sound strategic planning in line with community aspirations and which provides overall ‘community benefit’. There is no ‘community benefit’ in having potentially ten storey buildings overlooking single storey homes in a heritage overlay. Nor is there community benefit in flogging off council owned land for potential ‘mixed use’ development or for social housing. If council was really serious about social housing then it would not have endorsed a policy which seeks a meagre 5% of dwellings as social housing. It would have included a percentage of at least 10=20%! All of the above has nothing whatsoever to do with the government and everything to do with this administration and its lackey, pro-development councillors!
Cade’s question to Torres repeats past practice on the Carnegie/Bentleigh structure plans of several years ago. What happens if the draft isn’t passed Cade asks? Torres’ response once again resorts to straight out fear-mongering when he says: ‘If tonight’s recommendation did not get supported, our structure planning process for Bentleigh would not proceed’!!!!!!!!!! Why not? Why can’t improvements be made, or does council believe everything it sets out is perfect? There is nothing that stops a council from revisiting its drafts (as has happened previously) and ensuring that it is as sound and strategically justified as possible. Furthermore, the issue is not about abandoning the draft. Those councillors who voted against it simply wanted improvement and implied that this was not up to scratch. Given that council still has 18 months to get it right, the suggestion that everything will lapse or be abandoned is outrageous. Nor is it a valid argument to say that the community wants structure plans for ‘better controls’ and so council is providing structure plans. This of course ignores the central question as to whether the final plans do in fact offer ‘better controls’.
Torres then goes even further with the statement that if the motion fails, then the Minister could ‘quite possibly remove those (interim) controls’ from Bentleigh. Fear mongering at its best!!!!! And without a shred to evidence to support this claim. We know of no other instance in planning history where a minister has removed existing interim DDO’s in their entirety prior to the date nominated.
Cade then goes on to a supposed explanation as to why the draft hasn’t included the recommendations of the government’s Urban Design Guidelines. She says that the guidelines are a ‘background document’ and therefore aren’t in the planning scheme – so presumably council can ignore them is the implication. What is not stated is that STRUCTURE PLANS are also considered as background documents and are NOT IN PLANNING SCHEMES either!!!!!!! What does get into planning schemes are the amendments which introduce the Design & Development Overlays. In Glen Eira all of the most important strategic plans are ‘background documents’ –ie East Village structure plan; City PLan, Activity Centre plans; Urban Design Guidelines, etc.
Finally, Cade states that ‘I am not going to talk about building heights and setbacks’ or ‘parking’ because ‘I am sure my fellow councillors will address’ these issues. Really? How on earth can you move a motion to support a structure plan without even mentioning the most important aspects of it, and the most contentious? If you support something, then the onus should be on providing evidence as to why potentially 10 storey developments are appropriate, or why a 5 metre setback (discretionary) is okay when other councils have managed 6 metre setbacks in their major activity centres? But we guess it is easy to ignore the contentious issues and to simple promulgate more propaganda about everything being in the state’s control!
Cade’s conclusion is equally bizarre when she claims to want to hear from other councillors not only on what they like or dislike about the plan, but what they would ‘propose’ as an ‘alternative’. This is completely out of order since the possibility of an ‘alternative’ motion has already been rejected by Magee. Councillors are debating the motion as it stands and NOT what might be a feasible ‘alternative’.
Cade’s sudden ‘conversion’ is a concern. She is also doing the community a major disservice by simply regurgitating officer reports and presumably being complicit in staged Dorothy Dix questioning of officers only to provide them with the opportunity to further the set agenda. We remind her and our readers that stage managed debates are the antithesis of ‘robust’ discussion and serving the community with original thinking!
The following audio is taken from last night’s council meeting where once again the council was split in voting 5 to 4 to send the draft structure plan out for consultation. There were many criticisms of the current draft, plus some fear mongering from certain councillors and the administration. The final vote was – AGAINST: Esakoff, Szmood, Zyngier, Pennicuik. Those who voted FOR were: Cade, Zhang, Athanasopolous, Magee and Parasol. We note that not for the first time, Parasol did not utter a word as to the reasoning behind his vote. He simply put up his hand.
Here is what one resident had to say about the draft and its unbelievable shortcomings:
We will comment more fully on what transpired in discussion on this item in the days ahead.
PS: In the above audio, Torres tried to negate the potential for a ten storey development by referring to the ‘setbacks’. What he doesn’t state is that rear setbacks for commercial dwellings backing on to heritage areas are NOT MANDATORY. They are DISCRETIONARY – and we all know how little control DISCRETIONARY provides!
Like so many councils, Glen Eira has an Urban Forest Strategy. Yet we really know nothing about the progress of this strategy. We do have an ‘implementation strategy’ which is full of aspirational, motherhood statements, rather than clear and precise plans. As an example here is a screen dump from part of this strategy.
Please note that council’s annual report fails to reveal how many trees were removed. All we are told is the number of new plantings. To the best of our memory, we have yet to see any ‘audit’ of the strategy. If this has been done, then it should be in the public domain!
Nor does the Urban Forest Strategy outline how the disparity in terms of canopy cover between various areas are to be tackled. Yes, there are a few sentences which state the areas with lower tree canopy but nothing is proposed on which areas will become top priority, nor how. Since the adoption of the strategy, no further information has surfaced in regards to this important factor.
By way of contrast, we urge readers to compare Glen Eira with Bayside. In the latter’s current agenda we find lengthy documents for each of their precincts – shown below –
We’ve uploaded the Brighton East document merely as an example.
Yet the analysis, and draft actions, are specifically directed to the individual characteristics of this area – even street to street as shown by the included maps.
Finally it is worth reminding readers that Bayside has set a target of 30% tree canopy cover by 2040. Glen Eira has been forced to change its initial target and go up to 22% by 2040 – for a municipality that has close to the greatest loss of tree canopy in the state and definitely the least amount of public open space per capita. When will we see some real action, some real planning, and some meaningful financial resourcing so that the tree canopy will indeed increase dramatically?
Last night saw a great turnout of over 90 residents for the Elsternwick structure plan forum. Also in attendance were: David Southwick, Simone Szmood, David Zyngier, Sam Parasol, Jim Magee. Apologies came from two councillors when first invited (Esakoff and Zhang) and after accepting the invite, Athanasopolous was once again a very, very late apology! His record of ‘no shows’ stands intact!
Residents made their concerns and objections very clear. The same old issues surfaced time and again – the need to protect heritage; the importance of sunlight and avoiding overshadowing; the nonsense of allowing 12 storey buildings next to heritage, or even 4 storey developments behind single storey homes. Traffic congestion and parking was also commented on several times. The lack of open space also featured prominently.
Councillors acknowledged that officers were looking at the draft plan and attempting to make changes in response to community feedback. We will not hold our breath! We anticipate that in all likelihood the final structure plan will simply be a tinkering so that 12 storeys discretionary becomes 9 or 10 storeys discretionary (instead of mandatory) and heritage sites will now drop down to 5 storeys instead of 6 storeys. If this does eventuate, then it does little to address resident concerns!
What has been happening in Elsternwick, and in Glen Eira overall, according to the last two sets of census data, makes it crystal clear, how council’s stated objectives and strategies are nothing more than dismal failures. Please look carefully at the following table which features the Elsternwick data from the 2016 and the 2021 census. We then comment on what this table reveals.
Elsternwick, like all of Glen Eira, is continuing to lose its detached housing at an alarming rate. Yet, they are not being replaced by family ‘friendly’ dwellings. Instead we are getting more and more one and two bedroom dog boxes and in Elsternwick a reduction in 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings.
Elsternwick is already the densest suburb in all of Glen Eira – 4,207 individuals per hectare. But the question of density is never addressed nor even questioned as to what it does in terms of overall psycho-social health, the need for more and more open space, sunlight etc. Other councils have realised that personal open space is vital, so in their planning schemes they have succeeded in stipulating that balconies should be a minimum of 12 square metres and 2 metres in width. In Glen Eira we are forever stuck with 8 square metres and a width of 1.8 metres. Yes, a small example but it can be done if there’s the will.
Council seemingly plucked out of nowhere a figure of 50:50 ratio of public transport transition and to make this happen, intends to reduce (or completely remove) the requirement for onsite parking in certain spots. As far as the 50:50 figure is concerned, we cannot find one bit of evidence to support this. Yet this becomes the ‘standard’ for all future planning throughout Glen Eira (and at one stage it even became 60:40 for the urban renewal south areas before this was abandoned completely.) Looking at the census stats it is obvious that car ownership in Elsternwick is climbing and that there is a continued decline of dwellings without cars throughout Glen Eira as a whole. The message should be clear – ie that removing onsite parking will not force people to use public transport or to forgo owning a car. The number of dwellings continues to climb, whilst the number of dwellings without cars continues to fall.
Even in 2016, in a suburb like Elsternwick which has train, tram and bus services only 25% of residents used public transport and 53.6% travelled to work by car. The data for 2021 can be ignored since this was during COVID and many people simply worked from home.
So what’s the take home message from all of the above? Council has absolutely no power to force developers into building 3 and 4 bedroom homes. They have absolutely no control over ‘affordability’ so even if townhouses and apartments of3 and 4 bedrooms increases to cater for families, the asking price will still remain high and unaffordable for many people. The Housing Strategy wants more townhouses and more dwellings on various sites. Again, no guarantee that this will meet affordability hopes, or that cramming more and more people into an area of 2.6 square km will achieve ‘liveability’.
What’s also important is that the feedback from this forum does rate a comprehensive mention in any ensuing officer’s report. It is simply not good enough that council’s fallback argument is that this was not a council initiated consultation process and therefore can simply waft into the stratoshere and be completely ignored and forgotten.
Finally, what residents want is not the Magee spiel of last night, that the government will not agree to mandatory heights, or other specifications. This may well be correct. But what residents want is to see their councillors fight tooth and nail for them and to put public and outspoken pressure on a state government that is becoming more and more dictatorial in its processes.
Council has released its draft 2023/4 budget. Despite a drop in forecast surplus to a mere $3m+, and fraught economic conditions, council is roaring head with a $37M loan so that by the end of the next financial year, residents will find themselves in debt to the tune of $63M!!!!
Much is made of council’s claims about community consultation for the budget. The claim is as follows:
We have listened to our community and understand their priorities and areas of focus for the draft 2023-24 Budget. This includes investment in maintenance of roads and footpaths, climate response initiatives and service provision (aged care, seniors, youth, family, children, disability, accessibility and pets). (page 54)
When we actually peruse the draft budget the above proves to be nothing more than spin! It raises the question of why even bother spending money on ‘consultation’ when resident views are so regularly ignored!
According to the consultation feedback, we learn that:
The top three categories where participants want Council to increase spending were:
o Maintenance for roads and footpaths
o Climate response initiatives
o Services (aged care, seniors, youth, family, children, disability, accessibility and pets)
The top three categories where participants want Council to reduce spending were:
o Business and community support
o Sport, leisure and recreation
o Climate response initiatives
Council’s response and assumed explanation of how resident views were incorporated into the budget comes with this paragraph –
Council has considered the community’s feedback on reducing spend in certain categories. More participants wanted more spending on climate response initiatives than less expenditure. The proposed budget, for consultation, provides $652k lift in spending for sport, leisure and recreation and $183k less spending for business and community support. (page 60)
The real slap in the face to residents comes with council’s response to the Urban Forest Strategy (UFS) and other sustainability projects. Surely the prime objective of the UFS is to increase our rapidly declining tree canopy. So how does this year’s funding for increased tree planting compare to last year’s budget? Here are the relevant screen dumps from the 2022/3 budget and the current proposals.
The tree planting component has dropped from $1.35M to $827,000. We do not know how many trees have, or will be replaced, nor how much each tree or sapling has increased in price. What is clear is that the number of tree plantings can only decline given this budget allocation. So much for increasing our tree canopy!!!!! Whilst one might argue that increasing maintenance and tree pruning is justified, is it justified to the extent of an extra one million dollars? And does this imply that previous maintenance was found wanting and insufficient?
Also disturbing is the continual smoke and mirrors throughout the budget. It becomes near impossible to drill down and determine precisely what is proposed to be spent where. This is largely due to the fact that so many departments and services are lumped together without clear differentiation.
On footpaths we get:
In addition, footpaths are funded at $1.92m to ensure the continuation of the critical footpath renewal program, which is identified through Council’s inspection programs. The proposed allocation is based on current data on footpath condition and defects.
Yet in the 2022/3 budget we find the following:
Council’s budget allocation of $2.15m for footpaths ensures the continuation of the critical footpath renewal program, which is identified through Council’s inspection programs. The proposed allocation is based on current data on footpath condition and defects and includes $100k for enhancement of ‘Great Walking Streets’. (Page 154 – 2022/3 budget)
Making things even more clouded is council’s claim that the current capital works program includes $14M carry over from the previous budget. The financial report included in the current agenda tells us that the carry over includes $578,000 for the footpath allocation. Does this therefore mean that the newly proposed $1.92 allocation is really only $1.342M?
We also take issue with the following paragraph that is a verbatim repetition of what was in last year’s budget papers –
The City is substantially developed and while it is experiencing an increase in property numbers, these mainly arise from higher density developments. This impacts on the budget as Council has to deal with the replacement of infrastructure, such as drains, that cannot cope with the higher density. These costs cannot be passed on to the developer and are paid for from rates. The rates received from new dwellings do not offset the significant infrastructure costs.
In the 2016 Planning Scheme Review, the issue of introducing a Development Contributions Levy and a Community Infrastructure Levy was promised by council. Countless other municipalities have such a levy but not Glen Eira which allowed its previous levy to lapse close to a decade ago. It is now 2023 and we are still waiting for council to come up with such a levy in the face of massive development throughout the municipality. It should not take seven plus years to stop subsidising developers!!!!!
Perhaps the simplest way of highlighting what is proposed is to compare the previous budget with the current one. All highlighted red squares in the following images represent a decrease in proposed new capital works spending – apart from the ‘buildings’ component which has sky rocketed.
Finally, we have scoured the budget and been unable to find a single word regarding pensioner rebates on their rates. Readers will remember that this rebate has been reduced year after year so what started at $150 dwindled to a piddling $19 last year. No mention is made of this in the 2023/4 budget so we can reasonably assume that council’s largesse has finally come to a screaming halt. But that has not stopped council from implementing its ‘traditional’ price hikes on child care ($3 per day), rubbish bins ($46 for a 240 Litre bin) GESAC prices, etc. And rates of course have jumped to a 3.5% increase.
In our view budgets should include ‘efficiencies’ – where and how council is saving money. Contractor costs, staff costs, etc continue to climb despite the stated objective of reducing reliance on consultants. Instead all we get in this budget is spin, obfuscation, and a full system go on more and more major projects costing the earth. Surely not what the community consultation feedback wanted?!
Readers may have seen media reports that the Ombudsman has investigated Glen Eira Council’s ‘complaint handling process’ and found them to be – to put it bluntly – beyond the pale in dealing with residents. Here is what the ombudsman has determined –
Foreword
… [the] footpath works were conducted by a third-party contractor. Council is not, as a matter of law, liable for the alleged negligence of contractors and accordingly, you will need to direct your claim to the contractor …Glen Eira City Council in response to the complainant
When is a complaint not a complaint? I asked this question in a report I tabled in 2019 when I was trying to compare Victorian council complaint numbers, which turned out to be the idiomatic apples and oranges. This definitional dilemma was so confusing we found a small rural council with over a thousand complaints but a large metropolitan council with fewer than a hundred – plus nearly 300,000 ‘requests for service’ it had decided were not complaints.
I said at the time that councils needed to adopt a wide definition of ‘complaint’ not only to improve their services to ratepayers, but also to help themselves. A complaint is, essentially, an expression of dissatisfaction. Complaints are free feedback about how the community regards council services. They can identify pressure points where things need to be fixed.
Happily, the State Government adopted my recommendations, which were reflected in the revamped Local Government Act. It required all 79 Victorian councils to adopt and maintain a complaint policy from 1 January 2022.
Less happily, while councils have updated their complaint handling policies and processes, some areas of apparent confusion remain. For at least one local council, a claim for compensation was not a complaint, even though it was an expression of dissatisfaction.
This report follows a complaint made by a Glen Eira City Council ratepayer about damaged stormwater pipes causing flooding on his property. His plumber said footpath works by a Council contractor likely caused the damage.
The ratepayer presented his plumber’s opinion and quote to the Council, expecting it to resolve the matter, no doubt by arranging for the damage to be fixed or at least considering his complaint. The Council, however, said the footpath works were done several years earlier, and the ratepayer should take it up directly with the Council’s contractor. The ratepayer’s reluctance to do so added a layer of complexity which was not helped by the Council’s stubborn position of persistently claiming it was not a complaint, but a claim for compensation.
I disagree. We found the Council’s handling of the matter to be wrong. A claim for compensation can still be a complaint, and almost invariably is. The Council’s handling of the complaint was contrary to the spirit of its own policy, not to mention the Local Government Act, both of which adopt a broad definition of complaint.
Frustratingly, while the Council accepted my recommendation in an early draft of this report to arrange an investigation of the damage and to liaise with the contractor to arrange repairs if appropriate, the complaint remains unresolved. The Council says it investigated and found no evidence the contractor was responsible. But it was vague in explaining how it arrived at such a firm view, and failed to offer the ratepayer a review of that decision.
Equally frustratingly, during our interactions, the Council centred much of its response around liability, when that is not, and has never been, the key point. Whether or not the Council, the contractor, or the complainant is liable to pay for the damage, the Council has a responsibility to deal with the complaint.
So where has it landed? The Council has accepted my recommendation to provide the ratepayer with the evidence and detailed reasons for its view that the contractor did not damage the pipes, and to provide him with an option for review if he remains dissatisfied. I will monitor this with interest.
While this complaint involved one ratepayer and one council, I am tabling this report to highlight bigger issues. One is that complaints matter, and councils should not be paying lip service to the broad definition in the Local Government Act.
Second, during our investigation we found Victoria’s 79 councils adopt widely varying approaches to handling matters involving contractor work, and it appears many may have more work to do in developing and explaining their processes for these types of complaints.
It is clearly in the interests of all councils to engage with complaints about their contractors’ services, which are invariably funded by ratepayers. Among other things, it gives them the opportunity to identify poor quality of work, and keeps them informed about the status of local infrastructure. And it ensures they continue to have a direct relationship with their ratepayers.
Deborah Glass Ombudsman
At one stage the Council appeared to suggest legal action might be necessary, though fortunately, it later clarified this view, as it simply cannot be right that the only recourse for a citizen alleging damage caused by council works is to take legal action against a third party.
A council in Melbourne’s south-west has been urged to ditch plans for a lavish new $60 million pool complex, which locals say they don’t need, and the council can’t afford to build.
Hobsons Bay City Council voted last month to spend $2 million on design plans for the proposed Western Aquatic and Early Years Learning Centre in Altona Meadows, despite hundreds of residents signing a petition calling for an existing pool in the neighbouring suburb of Laverton to be refurbished instead.
Locals like Stephen Morgan, president of the Rainbow Club charity which supports disabled people to learn to swim, want the Laverton pool revamped instead of an expensive new facility.
Laverton resident Victoria Mikula, who presented the 784-signature petition to the council, said the existing pool was partly funded by residents in the 1970s and was an important part of the area’s history.
“Laverton is a low socio-economic area and for years the council has been slowly removing our services and relocating them to other suburbs,” she said. “Laverton pool is all we have left.”
The Rainbow Club, a charity that runs several weekly swim classes for disabled children and adults at the Laverton pool, said the new facility would not be suitable for its clients.
“The new pool will be a loud, major aquatic centre in a fairly small space,” said Stephen Morgan, the founder of the club’s Point Cook chapter.
“It has too many distractions and too much noise, which doesn’t help people with neuro diverse challenges.”
The council plans to decommission the pool at Laverton’s Swim and Fitness Centre and redevelop it as a water play and youth facility, but without a pool.
Last year, then-mayor Peter Hemphill referred to a 2018 council review of the 50-year-old pool, and said it was not viable to redevelop it as a modern indoor aquatic centre. However, the same review found the pool could exist for another 30 years if properly maintained.
“Our city is growing – we’ll have about 112,000 residents by 2036,” Hemphill said in August. “The Laverton Swim and Fitness Centre has served our community well for decades, but it was not technically or financially prudent to redevelop it as a modern indoor aquatic and leisure centre.”
The council has committed $20 million to the new aquatic facility. The state government has promised another $10 million, leaving Hobsons Bay $30 million short of committed funds.
The council has also acknowledged the works could blow out by as much as 40 per cent. A 40 per cent increase on $60 million would be $84 million.
Hobsons Bay councillor Daria Kellander abstained from last month’s vote to spend $2 million on design plans for the centre because she wasn’t convinced the full funding would be secured.
“The council doesn’t have the money, yet it is pushing ahead as if this is something that is going to happen within the next five years,” Kellander said.
“This is a very ambitious project and our ratepayers shouldn’t be treated like an open cheque book. The state and federal governments are clamping down now trying to cut costs, so I really don’t know where the council is going to get that money from.”
A spokesman for the council said it needed to invest in the pool design to secure funding from both state and federal governments.
“This level of commitment to the design phase is vital to ensuring we can accurately plan for project delivery once funding is secured,” he said. “Having the project ‘shovel-ready’ also gives us the best chance of obtaining state and federal funding for this major advocacy priority.”
The spokesman said the council would continue seeking state and federal funding despite budgetary constraints.
“The cost of the pool has now blown out to at least $84 million as disclosed recently in the council meeting,” Hurlston said.
“I see hundreds of these projects across Victoria, but I’ve never seen a council commit to a project with a $54 million shortfall. It’s very irresponsible.
“The fact that [Hobsons Bay Council] has now agreed to spend $2 million to draw up plans to try and apply for funding is just absolutely idiotic.”
Hurlston also criticised the council for refusing to release the business case for the pool to residents, about which he has complained to the ombudsman.
The ombudsman’s office said it could not confirm whether it was investigating the matter. The council also declined to provide a copy of the business case to The Age.
Glen Eira Debates 