GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 9, 2015

Secrecy & More Secrecy!

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

The recent outcry against the secret vote for ‘guns in parks’ highlighted once again how Glen Eira continues to operate behind a veil of secrecy and abuse of the legislation. In 2011 we featured a post which itemised the number of decisions made in camera and the number of decisions which were subsequently reported in the minutes (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/a-record-to-be-proud-of/

Not too much has changed since. Countless items that feature in the agenda papers for in camera decision making are not reported in the subsequent minutes and what is even worse, there is no explanation as to why only some items include the number of applicants for the tender, the criteria, and most importantly the estimated cost. Countless others simply describe the vague nature of the tender and that’s it!

But the most damning indictment of all is that an examination of the minutes proves once and for all how decisions are made behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. On the 8^th April, 2014 the following tender appeared in the in camera agenda items –

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of a contract for refurbishment of the Caulfield Park Conservatory Number of tenders received 8; Number of evaluation criteria tenders

assessed against 3

Estimated contract value $250,000

No outcome for this item was recorded. Yet at the very next Council Meeting (29^th April, 2014) there is the extraordinary report and subsequent vote to demolish the conservatory – despite 2 rounds of public consultation and 2 previous resolutions that demanded it be maintained and restored. So what happened on the 8^th April that caused this change of heart? What did it cost to produce and advertise the tender documents? Or is it the case that behind closed doors on the 8^th April it was decided to scuttle the debate and the subsequent meeting was merely to ‘ratify’ an already made decision? Even if we are wrong here, it does not say much for council and councillors when public money is wasted on tendering and within three weeks this all comes to nought!

Things get even worse with the following –

12.1 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to awarding of the contract for Tender 2015.049 Booran Reserve Construction of New Playground and Associated Works (21^st July 2015)

Nothing was forthcoming. Hence residents had no idea – (1) if a contract was awarded (2) what was the price and (3) exactly what does ‘associated works’ really mean.

There are other gems too which illustrate the nastiness and internal bickering that has been part of Glen Eira ever since Newton set foot in the place. Here are some examples – again not disclosed and we can only wonder how much more of ratepayer funds went into lawyers’ pockets without disclosing the amounts –

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

12.2 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” and s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to compliance with the Local Government Act.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. (9^th April, 2013)

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

An item of Urgent Business under s89(2)(a) personnel and 89(2)(f) legal advice which relates to a personnel matter. (6^th November 2013)

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

12.3 Under s89(2)(d) contractual, which relates to the contract for Community Energy Efficiency Program.

12.2 Under s89(2)(d) contractual, which relates to the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.(11^th June 2013)

The results of the following items were not disclosed in the minutes –

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for the provision of legal services.

Number of tenders received 5

Number of evaluation criteria tenders assessed against 5

12.4 under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to completed capital works approved by Council

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion (17^th December 2013)

which relates to the contract for internal audit services

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of prequalified supplier panel for the procurement of trucks

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for processing of organic waste

12.4 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to the appointment of Community representatives to the Citizen of the Year Awards Committee

But the one we love the best is the ubiquitous nonsense of – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter.

12.4 under s89 (2)(f) ‘legal advice” which relates to the Code of Conduct.

12.1 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Council’s Audit Committee (4^th February 2014)

12.3 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to insurance

12.3 under s89 (2) (f) “legal advice” which relates to “Code of Conduct – Possible Additions” (july 22^nd 2014)

12.2 under (f) “legal advice” which relates to the Code of Conduct. (18^th March 2014)

12.5 under s89(2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to additional open space.

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for Tender 2014.043 Provision of Wide Area Network (Wan) Infrastructure

12.5 Under section S89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” Open Space Strategy – gap areas. This report does not recommend any acquisition of any housing. (5^th September 2015)

12.1 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to awarding of the contract for Tender 2015.049 Booran Reserve Construction of New Playground and Associated Works 21^st july 2015

12.2 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates the appointment of a contractor for the supply of fuel for Council’s vehicle fleet.

12.2 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to disposal of general household waste

12.0 under s89(2)(a) “personnel”, minutes of Community Consultation Advisory Committee meeting of 19 February 2015 relating to nominations received for Community Representatives on the Committee

Thus it goes on an on. Why on earth residents can’t be told who is the contractor for disposal of general household waste’ or who will be the supplier for fuel and how much this will cost, is literally beyond us. Why the secrecy? Or is it all designed to make it that much more difficult to follow the money trail and to see who is getting what?

We should also be prepared for the fact that when the new Code of Conduct comes out post election that there will be the attempt no doubt to gag councillors even more. You don’t spend thousands upon thousands on lawyers and then maintain the status quo! And please remember that the legislation does not MANDATE in camera decision making. It merely suggests that councils ‘MAY’ decide to deem certain items confidential. In Glen Eira this has come to mean practically everything whilst other councils are prepared to publish their decision making on commercial tenders Glen Eira doesn’t. Whilst other councils are prepared to publish their ceo performance assessments, Glen Eira doesn’t. And whilst other councils are far more specific in their descriptions of confidential items Glen Eira is content to say again and again – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter. That is double speak at its absolute best and indicative of a council who pays no credence to their obligations of transparency and accountability.

December 9, 2015

Council Sell-Outs!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

When it comes to the MRC, Council turns a blind eye again and again.

Two days ago the CMFEU had their annual picnic day at the racecourse. Contrary to the so called ‘agreement’ –

Cars were parked in the centre of the racecourse – a definite ‘no-no’
No traffic wardens to manage the mayhem – although radio reports kept warning motorists to stay clear of the area
No warning to residents
No clarity as to whether this constitutes a ‘major’ event or not?
In short, council simply lets the MRC do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

The Caulfield Village is now really taking shape along Station St and residents should not be surprised to find that what was supposed to be a 5 storey building (according to the Incorporated Plan of 2011) became a 6 storey building with the Development Plan. Please also note how balconies are now allowed to intrude as far as they like into the setbacks – courtesy of another Amendment that was gleefully promoted by council. We can hardly wait for all the other cave-ins to occur when the next set of Development plans come in for the remaining two precincts. Well done council for selling out residents completely!

December 8, 2015

Guns In Parks?

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

PS – AND HERE’S PILLING’S EFFORT WITH NEIL MITCHELL -http://www.3aw.com.au/news/glen-eira-mayor-refuses-to-answer-sensational-gun-claims-20151208-gli2e4.html

Delahunty’s interview on yesterday’s Neil Mitchell program –

https://audioboom.com/boos/3912931-glen-eira-councillor-mary-delahunty-with-neil-mitchell

Our following comments are directed to the processes that surround the in camera Special Council Meeting of 20^th October 2015.

Council’s Local Law categorically states that ‘urgent business’ will only be entertained under Section 225(1) –if a matter of an urgent nature has arisen since circulation of the notice paper and the Council resolves to consider the matter as urgent business

How can something be considered as ‘urgent business’ when –

The records of assembly for the 6^th October contain the following – Cr Lipshutz – letter to Cr Hyams from the Jewish Community Security Group. With the Shabbat Project approaching Council needs to deal with the issues raised in the letter AND
From the records of assembly for the 13^th October – Agenda Item 10 – Urgent Business – Cr Lipshutz, Security at community events.

The Shabbat Project is an annual event. It is not something that crops up at the last minute. We also don’t know the date of the letter to Hyams and why it should come not from the official organisers, but the ‘security group’. If the matter was really that urgent then legislation provides the means for a Special Council Meeting to be called at any time – either by the Mayor alone or with the signatures of 3 councillors.

The whole process appears to be continually mired in controversy and is fast becoming a divisive item. Here is an extract from the Minutes of September 23^rd, 2014. Poor process and lack of good governance are evident – ie ‘the rescinding of a ‘council decision’ via email – when no such decision is recorded in any of council’s minutes as far as we know!

URGENT BUSINESS

Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

That a matter of the Shabbat Project be regarded as an item of Urgent Business.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

(a) Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

That Council rescind its decision contained in the email to Mr Tom Winter on 19 September 2014.
That subject to any prior bookings that Council hire the meeting room at the Caulfield Park Pavillion to the organisers of the Shabbat Project (the organisers) for the 25 October 2014 (the date) on Council’s usual terms and conditions and grant a permit to the organisers for the use of Caulfield Park on the date for the purposes set out in their application including a permit for the use of fireworks subject to Council’s usual terms and conditions including but not limited to:

(i) Compliance with all safety requirements in relation to the use of fireworks;

(ii) There being no interference or damage to the cricket pitch area; and

(iii) There being no interference with the use of the ovals for sport on the date and the following day.

DIVISION

Cr Sounness called for a DIVISION on the voting of the MOTION

FOR AGAINST

Cr Lipshutz Cr Delahunty

Cr Hyams Cr Sounness

Cr Okotel Cr Magee

Cr Pilling Cr Lobo

The MOTION was put and CARRIED on the Casting Vote of the Chairperson.

The Shabbat Project mentioned in the first record of assembly for 2015 featured numerous events in Melbourne (October 22^nd).The Age also ran a story including this paragraph – In Melbourne, meanwhile, Jews of all ages and from all denominations were united in the spirit of the occasion, with more than 2400 people baking challah and attending the havdalah concert at Caulfield Park, and hundreds attending dinners, lunches, shul services, picnics, talks and everything in between.

Thus the question remains whether Council’s secret resolution was to provide ‘security’ for the Shabbat Program alone, or to ensure that Chanukah in the Park was able to switch from Caulfield Park to the racecourse once fears arose it might be cancelled altogether.

Further complicating matters is this Age report from November 23^rd 2015 reporting on the ‘cancellation’ of Chanukah in the Park (See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/security-risks-prompt-cancellation-of-jewish-event-chanukah-in-the-park-20151123-gl5po9.html). Of interest in this article are the views of several prominent Jewish Leaders who claimed that the event should still have occurred at Caulfield Park and that security was not a problem. The Leader (December 1^st issue) claims that the event at Caulfield Park was cancelled on November 25^th and once again it is claimed that the event could have gone on as originally intended. Whatever the ‘official’ date for ‘cancellation’ it is clear that ‘security’ was well and truly on the minds of Lipshutz and Hyams from early October. Whether this was strictly for the Shabbat Project events or intended to carry over to Chanukah in the Park is anyone’s guess.

In a ‘memorandum’ dated the 15^th October Magee called for a Special Council Meeting. An Age advertisement appeared on the 16^th October. That makes it 4 days prior to the actual Special Council meeting. The legislation (Section 89(4) requires 7 days notice. If notice is any shorter then the legislation also requires that Council MUST – specify the urgent or extraordinary circumstances which prevented the Council from complying with subsection (4) in the minutes. This has not been done.

We could also question whether the reasons given to conduct the meeting in secret are valid (ie security of land, etc) since the clauses quoted are only applicable to council meetings and Special Committee Meetings. There is nothing in the cited legislation which provides Special Council Meetings to be closed to the public!

Thus we get to the Special Council Meeting of 20^th October and the highly questionable reasons for excluding the public. We quote –

“matters affecting the security of Council property” AND “any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person”.

The final phrase of the motion is important – which relates to the provision of security services for events on Council property.

If the switch to the racecourse was the objective, then we maintain that the above justifying clauses are entirely spurious since –

The Racecourse is NOT ‘COUNCIL PROPERTY’
What ‘prejudice’ to council or ‘any person’ could exist? And what does this even mean?
Did the Trustee’s who have responsibility for the Reserve give their permission?
Did any ‘negotiations’ take place with the MRC?
And who has the final authority to allow the carrying of firearms by anyone?
Who grants permits for the carrying of firearms?
What are the implications for long term = does this mean that at every Ajax footy or cricket game residents can expect guards with firearms?
And what if Ajax is playing ‘away’ – since the clause specifies ‘council property’, or
Was this all designed only for Chanukah in the Park, or for the Shabbat Project and what of the future?

And of course, there is the perennial question of WHO LEAKED to the Leader? Only officers and councillors would have been present at this secret tete-a-tete. Will the Leader journalist now be hauled off to court in the attempt to reveal his source as happened years ago with Matthew Dunkley? Hasn’t this Council learnt anything? – that secrecy only breeds suspicion and distrust.

Yes, Glen Eira Council is definitely one happy bunch of campers where so much is done behind closed doors. Countless questions remain as to what really goes on behind these closed doors and how the ‘victim’ is always transparency and good governance.

December 5, 2015

God Save The Queen ‘Cos Nothing Can Save These Councillors!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments

We are revisiting the carnage that is taking place in Carnegie because a definite trend is developing throughout the municipality. Once a particular street is gone, then developers move onto the next street – knocking on doors and attempting to entice residents to sell. Now that Bent Street in Bentleigh is gone, the vultures are moving into Vickery. In Carnegie, Elliott Avenue is lost, so now the next profit making venture is Tranmere. Within two months of purchasing properties there, applications have gone in. The box below indicates those properties which have been sold but an application has yet to be submitted. The same for the next street along – Hewitts Road.

We have already depicted what is happening along Neerim Road. The image below reveals in all its gory detail what is happening in the surrounding local streets. This is not planning. This is incompetence and indifference and one might even argue utter negligence. When just under 500 dwellings are crammed into 4 blocks with no consideration of traffic, open space, drainage, water tables, and general mayhem for residents as a result of all this cumulative building, and all done in secret and by stealth and collusion, then all these councillors must be held to account. What is even more unforgivable, is knowing that this is happening and refusing to do anything to ameliorate the damage – except of course to blame VCAT and the State Government for their own incompetence and unwillingness to do what should have been done ten years ago – structure planning, design and development overlays, parking precinct plans, development contributions levy, and a fair dinkum review of the planning scheme.

CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE

December 3, 2015

Heritage In Glen Eira – What’s It Worth?

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

PS: we’ve revisited Amendment C106 which rezoned part of the heritage overlay to Public Utility Zone (Education). There were several objectors to this rezoning, so a Planning Panel was held. The amendment was basically to facilitate the proposed Monash redevelopment which includes the Caulfield Plaza (supermarket) and the construction of 800+ student accommodation residences.

The Planning Panel endorsed the proposed amendment. However some extracts from this panel report are important. They reveal once again how this council can promise the earth (ie reviewing its archaic policies) and years later nothing has happened. We also note that under this zoning of PUZ, buildings DO NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT! This of course was never mentioned in council chamber!

Here are some extracts from the Panel Report. Please note the various dates, and the continued litany of broken promises –

Derby Road shopping centre, noted in the Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan 1996 as being ‘significant at the metropolitan level as a predominantly post‐Federation shopping street….’;

The Amendment does not propose any change to properties affected by the Heritage Overlay. Council will continue to apply existing heritage planning controls and guidance as per the current Heritage Overlay, Heritage Policy and ‘Derby Road Draft Heritage Guidelines June 2003’ as part of the consideration of future proposals for buildings and works at 16‐28 Derby Road.

Council noted that this Policy is based on an urban design framework approved in 1998. Council is looking to review this policy in 2014, together with a number of other local policies.

If approved, the Public Use Zone will allow the development of buildings for educational purposes without the need for a planning permit. The exception to this is the properties at 16‐28 Derby Road, which will require permits for buildings and works due to their location within the Heritage Overlay

Sundry issues raised by objectors include the loss of Council revenue that would result from the rezoning to Public Use (Education); perceived loss of the heritage overlay for some Derby Road properties; urban design issues associated with development of the University campus; and a lack of planned streetscape improvements to Derby Road.

In their written submission, the Council noted that the relevant Clause 22.01 – Phoenix Precinct Policy of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is based on an urban design framework and that preferred uses for sites facing Derby Road are in accordance with the Derby Road Action Plan 1998 but that the Council is looking to review this policy in 2014

Lastly, the issue of streetscape improvements in Derby Road is beyond the scope of this Amendment but the Panel notes the Council’s intention to review the urban design framework and assumes that the streetscape will form part of that review.

December 2, 2015

The MRC Juggernaut – With A Little Help From My Friends!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments

True to form, the MRC continues with its money making ventures to the detriment of local residents – ably supported by council, by government, and by the pen pushers in the department. The latest outrages are:

Another rock concert in early December
This in combination with the month long circus
Another appeal by the MRC to VCAT over council’s refusal on the 30 plus radio towers
The department’s (and government’s) collusion in more compliance with MRC wishes
The failure to publish agenda items and minutes for the last Trustee meeting – despite the Auditor General’s report
The failure of council reps to utter a single word about what is going on
More than a year down the track since the Auditor General’s report and no visible signs of improvement in governance, access to the course, and the MRC giving a damn about the local community
Years down the track and not a whisper about the removal of training and the removal of fences as per original ‘agreement’.
And now we have Chanukah in the park with the prospect of fireworks. So much for the argument that ‘noise’ and horses don’t mix, therefore we have to keep the fences up to avoid horses bolting.

Thankfully divine providence may have intervened in blowing down the ramshackle fences along Queen’s Avenue – those very fences that were supposed to be removed ages ago and with council sharing the cost! See photos below.

Of far greater significance is this response to a complaint to the Minister in relation to the department’s removing all previous conditions it imposed on the granting of a permit for the outdoor cinema – namely – (a) trustee approval (b) land used to be under lease agreements and (c) current lease agreement in place. At the subsequent VCAT hearing which was appealed by a resident, the MRC magically pulled a new and undated letter from the department out of its bag of tricks. This new letter simply removed all of the earlier imposed conditions, making the granting of the permit a certainty. How convenient! How timely and how disgusting!

A complaint was then sent off to Minister Neville asking:

Why earlier conditions had been removed
Why an official letter was undated
Whether this was granted with ministerial approval
What was government doing in relation to the Auditor General’s report which was now over a year old

The full response is published here plus the pdf version –

Readers might also like to envisage what their land could look like once the decrepit, never maintained fences are permanently removed.

December 1, 2015

Ratepayers: The Developers’ Charity Fund?

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

PS: a new application has just gone in for a 7 storey, 24 dwellings in Centre Road, Bentleigh. A few doors away from the 9 storey application on the old Broadbent’s site. Because they can – THEY WILL as long as the planning scheme is without direction, without clear policy, and without any review!

Adding more insult to injury, it appears that ratepayers are now footing the bill to fix up the mess that developers leave as a result of their constructions. In response to a public question asked at last council meeting on who is paying for road reconstruction at 2 Morton Avenue, Carnegie, the response was:

In recent years, property development in the street has resulted in various utilities
excavating the road pavement to access underground services. On each occasion,
the utilities repaired the road, most likely at the developers cost to Council
standards. The end result of all this work, however, was a patchwork of repairs. In
addition to the repairs, sections of the road pavement had begun to fail due to
general wear and tear. To address the patchwork of repairs and to remedy the
failed sections of pavement, Council recently removed the road surface in the
affected area and applied a uniform patch. These final works were undertaken by Council’s Asphalt Crew at Council’s cost.

++++++++

Speaking of cost, here is another example of how to waste money defending the indefensible. Councillors responded to Wynne’s kick up the backside letter by ordering more ‘investigations’ into VCAT decisions. How many hours of officer’s time will be devoted to this? How much will this little exercise in futility cost? And why can’t this time be spent in drawing up worthwhile amendments to the planning scheme so that VCAT has some real guidance on planning applications? Thus, more ratepayer funds wasted on maintaining the illusion that all blame can be laid a the door of VCAT instead of council’s planning failures.

November 30, 2015

Deconstructing The Bullshit – #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[17] Comments

PS: It hasn’t taken the developer long to resubmit another application for Claire St., McKinnon. It is still 3 storey, and instead of 36 dwellings, the application is now for 33 dwellings. Yes, the VCAT decision certainly stymied the development, didn’t it? So much for Magee’s faith in council’s planning scheme and its non-existent neighbourhood character statements for housing diversity areas.

We are promoting additional transport options including more and better train, tram and bus services; car sharing, cycling and walking

Oh yes, Glen Eira is definitely transport conscious! That’s why the funding for bicycle paths has been cut despite budget promises. That’s why car sharing was put off and councillors never even told that a proposal had been submitted to officers years ago. When a report finally made it to council the decision was (typically) to delay for another year. The next year a tiny number of spots was set up. And how much credence do we give to council’s ‘promotion’ and ‘advocacy’ power, when they can’t even get a bus to run past East Boundary Road? Then there’s the fabulous Road Safety Strategy which lapsed in 2008 and hasn’t been updated, or newly ratified.

We fine builders if they breach safety requirements on building sites

We challenge any reader to find one single vcat decision where council has sought an order against any builder for ‘safety’ breaches. There aren’t any. As for fines – well we’ve featured countless photos of unsafe and illegal works (for pedestrians) alongside development sites. How many of these have been fined – despite the fact that the offences occur day after day!

We are advocating for all development costs to be paid for by developments and not fall on existing ratepayers.

Really? So is this the reason that Esakoff moved a motion at the last MAV state conference that basically asked for ‘all development costs’ – BUT ONLY FROM COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS?!!!!!! Forget the fact that this was never endorsed by any formal vote much less discussed in council chamber with supporting reasoning. Commercial development almost pales into insignificance when compared to the developments occurring in GRZ and RGZ and now MUZ. Why these developments ARE NOT targeted is the $64 question?

The best of course is last –

We are providing additional public open space and have imposed the highest Open Space Levy on multi-unit developments of any suburban council (estimated $5 million per annum)

Some very neat phrasing here which is technically not only untrue, but deliberately misleading. Glen Eira has NOT imposed the ‘highest’ levy on multi-unit developments. Plenty of other councils have much higher levies directed towards their activity centres, and suburbs where development is likely to occur at an intense rate. The perfect example of this is Stonnington which has the second lowest amount of public open space. In their proposed amendment they sought an 8% levy across the board in contrast to Glen Eira which has the least amount of public open space and only sought 5.7%. Admittedly Stonnington were not successful in getting their 8% for the entire municipality. However, they did achieve an 8% levy from developers in 4 suburbs, including Prahran and South Yarra. Achieving 8% from these 4 suburbs (given the size of these areas)plus the 5% from the rest of the municipality means that Stonnington is well ahead of anything that Glen Eira can achieve. Their Annual Report cites an INCREASE of $4.65 million in open space levies and this amount does not take into account the full year’s impact of the 8% in the four suburbs.

Nor is Stonnington alone. Moreland for example has had in place for years now the following levies for developments in their various suburbs –

Brunswick – 6.3%

Coburg – 6.8%

Faulkner – 5.7%

Glenroy – 6.5%

Then there’s Dandenong with 20% for this stated area – – Any residential or commercial subdivision in the area bounded by Springvale Road to the west, Cheltenham Road, Dingley Freeway Reservation, Dandenong Southern Bypass to the north, EastLink to the east and Hutton/Greens Roads to the south.

Further, whereas countless other councils included in their amendments the clause that for certain ‘significant’ sites , the levy payable be higher than the levy for other areas, Glen Eira council was quite prepared to accept the obscene figures of 4 and 5% for the 2000+ development of Caulfield Village. They were even prepared to accept the ‘normal’ rate for the Virginia Estate with its proposed 4,600+ dwellings of 5.7%.

Readers should also remember that at the 11^th hour, council reneged on its two previous resolutions that all monies collected from open space levies would be used to PURCHASE ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE. Instead, revenue is now basically ploughed into more of the same – mega palaces (ie pavilions) and car parks within parks that constitute ‘open space’. The only purchases of land in the past 12 years have been two properties in Packer Park and now one in Magnolia Road that could have been bought years ago for a much cheaper price given that there’s been the on-off-on farce with the public acquisition overlay. An appalling record for a council that has known for decades that open space is a priority for residents.

We estimate that with the population increase, open space in Glen Eira per resident will DECREASE if this current policy continues. This in fact has been admitted by the Open Space Strategy itself. So what is council doing about this? Bugger all in our view. Spending millions on ‘redevelopment’ is not the answer to the continued growing lack of public open space.

While the boom is being driven across Melbourne by external factors, Council is acting to limit heights and contain development to strip shopping centres and public transport routes

More deceptive phrasing we suggest. Most people would interpret ‘strip shopping centres’ as meaning the actual ‘strip’ itself and not residential land that is some 800 metres from the street. The use of present tense is also a concern. If council is ‘acting to limit heights’ then apart from 2 amendments for MUZ there is no evidence to suggest that council is doing anything to change the zoning. Council ‘acted’ in 2013. They are now totally ‘inactive’ except to refuse application after application and blame VCAT for everything.

Finally, the fact that such a piece of shonky, deceptive and deliberately misleading (mis)information could have gone out to residents without councilors’ knowledge says much about governance in Glen Eira and the kind of leadership that has been at the helm for far too long.

November 27, 2015

Deconstructing The Bullshit – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[18] Comments

Page two of council’s damage control exercise (ie the Apartment Boom letter) purportedly sets out all of the fabulous things that council is doing for its residents. It is a pity that careful phrasing and half truths dominate instead of real facts. We ask readers to consider each point. The Council statements are in italics.

Council is managing the boom within the limited powers given to us by state authorities.

One might quibble as to the definition of ‘limited powers’. Whilst it is true that there is much in all planning schemes set by the government, it is also true that close to a third of all planning schemes are handed over to councils to determine – they simply must support their proposals with sound empirical evidence. Councils are free to introduce structure plans, heritage overlays, design and development overlays, infrastructure levies on developers, open space levies, parking overlays, preferred character statements, up to date housing strategies for each precinct, and of course, the schedules to all the zones, and to determine where the zones go. We note that Glen Eira (contrary to other councils) has never had anything approaching real structure planning; it has 6 piddling design and development overlays – 3 of which regulate fence heights in a handful of streets and another two facilitate higher development in 2 specific areas. The Municipal Strategic Statement dates from 1999 and now belongs in a museum! Promises made centuries ago have never materialised. For 8 years council was content to extract a pittance for open space levies, knowing full well that the municipality was highly lacking in open space. Council also never bothered to ‘renew’ its lapsed development contributions levy so that now residents are subsidising developers completely for drainage. There is thus plenty that is within the power of council to initiate and deliver. They have simply refused to do the basics that every other council has done and which the State Government expects – ie structure planning and decent strategic planning.

We obtained government approval for maximum height limits over all residentially zoned land where there were no limits before.

The veracity of this statement depends on how one defines ‘residentially zoned land’. According to the planning scheme the Mixed Use zone (MUZ) is also labelled as ‘residentially zoned land’. Hence Council has not imposed maximum height limits on all residentially zoned land as they would like residents to believe. One could go even further and argue that today Commercial zones are de facto residential zoned land – especially when developers can build one or two shops and then put 100 units on top of this! It is also worth noting that Boroondara has managed to achieve a three storey height limit for its Neighbourhood Centres including the commercially zoned shopping strips and other councils are following this lead. In Glen Eira, no such thing exists, and even worse, all Local Centres are now zoned Commercial and the vast majority directly abut Neighbourhood Residential Zones.

As to the ‘no limits before’ statement – again a misrepresentation. There were limits, albeit, ‘preferred’ height limits of 9 metres. So what does council do with the zones? Accept and impose the absolute maximum of 10.5 and 13.5 metres and no height limits whatsoever for the Mixed Use Zone. A ‘one size fits all’ approach across the board. Sloppy planning indeed when seen in light of other councils and the number of GRZ and RGZ zones each applied and the height variations within each of the schedules. This of course required some hard work and a close analysis of the municipality – something entirely alien to this council.

Height limits by themselves do not of course make for good planning and protection of residential amenity. Especially not when there are no urban design frameworks to accompany the height limits and no real provision for open space, permeability, no tree protection, and no preferred character statements for Housing Diversity areas. We remind readers that other councils for both their GRZ and RGZ zones have managed to achieve far greater protections in terms of open space and permeability than Glen Eira. Some councils (ie Yarra) have even managed to have the Residential Growth Zones removed entirely and Bayside is also awaiting approval for this to happen in their municipality.

At the time of introducing the zones, Council had the choice. Schedules were there to be fine tuned. There was no fine-tuning. Simply a total cave in. Our question always remains the same – if other councils could get a better deal for their residents then why couldn’t Glen Eira? How hard did Newton, Akehurst and Hyams really try? Or were they so caught up with the self promotion of being the first council that all thought of getting the best deal went out the window?

There is nothing under the new zones that could not be built before

A nice little slogan! The point is that PRIOR to the zones, developments were far more constrained and those applications which did get through (particularly in Carnegie) were also the result of a poor and ill-defined planning scheme. The loopholes that exist now, existed then. The difference however is that cometh the new zones, developers, investors, and real estate agents were given the clear signal that they could now build to their hearts content and instead of a 9 metre preferred limit, they could now literally go for 13.5 metres in RGZ and 10.5 metres in GRZ. That’s why we are now seeing amended application after application seeking the limit. One perfect example is 20 Wheeler St., Ormond. On the 21^st May 2013 an application went in for 2 double storeys. On the 12^th December 2013 an amended permit went in for changes to windows. Then on the 21^st February 2014, a new application came in for 8 double storey dwellings. Council refused this application so we now get another application (15/10/2015) for seven dwellings on land that is roughly 760 square metres and zoned GRZ1 and this includes a combination of three and two storey buildings. Needless to say there is no minimum lot size for subdivision in Glen Eira, whilst Bayside is aiming for a minimum of 800 square metres and other councils have a range from 350 square metres per lot – ie Manningham

There’s also this beauty for 249 Neerim Road, Carnegie. In September 2011 an application went in for three storeys and 11 dwellings. It got a permit. Then in June 2015 another permit was issued for 4 storeys and 48 dwellings! Of course Council would like us to believe that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the zones

Even VCAT prior to the zones would pay close attention to the ‘preferred’ height limits. From a decision in 2011 on George St., Caulfield North –

The Council and Mr Durrell asked for the building to be lowered to 9 metres to meet Standard B7 (and consequently Standard B17 with respect to the western elevation) and to provide a better transition from the larger and higher form on the north side of George Street. ….. I consider lowering the building is a necessary together with other modifications as referred to in these reasons. I appreciate the scale of development opposite the site but am also mindful that land differs from the review site. The review site is small, has different building relationships, and has different visibility in the streetscapes and from adjacent confined lots. Further, it is influential to my conclusion that the change will assist to bring the development into compliance with Standard B17 with respect to the impact on No. 3 George Street

Compare the above (and council’s attitude) to what we now have. A VCAT decision from September 2015 –

There is no Design and Development Overlay or other overlay, or indeed a policy, to indicate the preferred heights for new multi-dwelling developments in the residential area. What guidance is available is obtained from Schedule 1 to the General Residential Zone, which specifies a maximum height of 10.5 metres for a building on this land. This height can comfortably accommodate three-storeys of residential development. Accordingly, the Council, through its Planning Scheme, has made a conscious decision to allow for three-storey development on this site. Indeed, the Council advised that it has no ‘in-principle’ objection to a three-storey building on the review site

Bent Street Bentleigh is another example of amended permits seeking an additional storey increase and more apartments to permits that had already been granted. Again, the VCAT member’s comments on what the zones really mean –

….there has been a change in planning circumstances, notably the zoning of the land has changed from Residential 1 Zone to the current General Residential Zone Schedule 1, which contemplates more intensive development where height of building can be 10.5 metres and up to 11.5 metres on a slope plus promotion of site consolidation, compared to the maximum height of 9 metres recommended in Clause 55 for the Residential 1 Zone.

The situation is even worse for some developments zoned Mixed Use and/or Commercial. Centre Road is the perfect example with applications going in for increased heights and increased numbers of dwellings. Because they can – they will! Which of course raises the question as to why Council did not at the time of introducing the zones include a height limit on MUZ? Thus, we return to the ad hoc planning that has characterised Glen Eira for well over a decade. Two recent amendments have imposed 3 storey height limit on MUZ sites. Why couldn’t this be applied to all such zoning back in 2013? Or is the truth finally dawning on council about the unmitigated disaster they have ushered in through their indecent, secretive haste and lousy planning?

We refuse to give on-street residential parking permits to new nulti-unit developments

Wonderful! Except that all these cars now go into surrounding residential streets that have no parking precinct plans attached to them and no real analysis of what these neighbouring streets can cope with. Nor does the absence of a residential parking permit mean that all those cars which are parked illegally will be fined. Laws are one thing – enforcement another!

Magee & The Zones & Bent Street

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

The following reports come from 2 agenda items – (1) comments on the VCAT decisions, and (2) the Bent St application. We have decided for this first item to highlight some of the comments made by Magee. The reasons should be obvious!

MAGEE: said he spent the day at VCAT with residents of Claire St., McKinnon and that the judgement shows that VCAT ‘does have the capacity’ to look at the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and listen to what the residents of Glen Eira ‘have said they want in the area’. The Planning Scheme has ‘been put together over many years with vast community consultation’ (sniggers and jeers from the gallery). Said he represents the 140,000 people and not the few who claim to do so. Continued that the planning scheme was voted on by all councillors. It then ‘went to the Minister’ who approved it. After doing ‘so much work, we know what our residents wanted’ and ‘that’s what our planning scheme actually says’. With the new zones, Claire Street has height limits and the developer got it wrong by wanting to ‘build almost fence to fence’. ‘He had scant disregard for our planning scheme’. The VCAT member ‘applied our planning scheme’ – he applied ‘what we as a council’ and what ‘we as residents have said is appropriate to Glen Eira’. Every council has a scheme but that sits on what councillors and ‘residents think is appropriate’ for that municipality. The member ‘applied our planning scheme’ and ‘when he did, this building did not fit’. And when he applied the rules that ‘residents put to us that they wanted, it did not fit’. Said that unfortunately not all VCAT members are as ‘educated’ as this member and not all of them ‘do their homework’ nor ‘appreciate the level of detail we have in our planning scheme’.

Said that 97% of the municipality has got height limits and 3% commercial with no height limits. Putting height limits on commercial areas has to be done through an overlay, and then community consultation, ‘permission from the minister’, and ‘through a long and detailed process’. ‘If council decides at some point in the future’ to do this, then he would ‘welcome that’ but to do ‘that we would need legal opinion, planning opinion’ and the Minister’s approval. There are some other things that might be done with the commercial zones but he is ‘very, very happy that’ the zones ‘cover 97% of our municipality’. This ‘in conjunction with our planning scheme’ is what ‘makes it work’. When VCAT doesn’t apply the planning scheme ‘that’s when it goes wrong’ but for Claire St., they did apply it.

COMMENT

97% of the municipality DOES NOT HAVE HEIGHT LIMITS!
Mixed Use Zones (apart from 2 specific sites) DO NOT HAVE HEIGHT LIMITS. No mention of course about this little fact
Once you remove parkland, VicRoad land, Special Utility zones, etc from the total acreage then the percentage of land zoned commercial and mixed use is far greater than the 3% this council would like residents to believe is the truth. Also given council’s penchant for transforming sites zoned C2 (ie no residential dwellings) into C1 (allowable residential dwellings such as Virginia Estate amendment) then the percentage skyrockets even further. Then add on all the amendments which have already and are still waiting to be rezoned from ‘industrial’ land into Mixed Use or Commercial and the figures literally go much higher.
Magee is obviously under the illusion that if you repeat something often enough people will believe you – ie ‘vast community consultation’. Perhaps he and the other councillors should ask residents whether they believe the planning scheme does in fact represent resident views?

BENT STREET APPLICATION

Before we report on the actual ‘debate’ readers need to take a look at what the zones have meant for this street and the surrounds. It is our estimate that since the zones were introduced the area has had 378 new dwellings permitted. This rivals Neerim Road’s 548 new dwellings. (click to enlarge the image)

Here is what councillors said. It took roughly 7 minutes!

Proposal 4 storey, 20 dwellings. Hyams moved motion to accept plus introducing some conditions for the street trees. Seconded by Sounness.

HYAMS: said he chaired the planning conference and that objectors’ ‘concerns’ have been ‘addressed by the officer recommendations’. This is the ‘right place for a 4 storey development’ ie next to supermarket and station and ‘sufficient’ parking. Went through some of the conditions such as increased setbacks for basement car parking to allow for landscaping. Basically read out the other conditions from the officer’s report. Thought that all of this meant a ‘reasonable compromise’.

SOUNNESS: said he is supporting the application in order to be ‘consistent with the planning scheme’ designed for the area. ‘Being part of the Bentleigh Urban Village it does have criteria’ and meets those criteria. There has also been a lot of 4 storeys surrounding this development and others higher in surrounding area given by VCAT.

LOBO: said that in 2011 ‘I predicted that Glen Eira will be like Calcutta’ and he ‘got told off’ for saying that. ‘Well the writing is on the wall’.

DELAHUNTY: said she remembers Lobo’s comments and is an ‘indication’ of what is happening in Bentleigh and ‘especially around this area’. Bent Street ‘have taken more than their fair share’. However she wanted to draw people’s attention to ‘housing affordability’ and the high cost of renting. A report came out showing that some families spend up to 50% of their income on rent. So they need more development and then the rental will drop because more development ‘will push the prices down’ for ‘people to be able to live around infrastructure’. Thought that Lobo’s values would also support the idea that people should be able to afford to live where there are good health services and ‘good infrastructure options’ and ‘Bentleigh certainly has’ those things. She ‘understands that it is a balancing act’ so will support the motion.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. Lobo only councillor to vote against.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates