GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

August 5, 2015

Politics 201!

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

Presented below are some lowlights from yesterday’s Hansard debate on the Planning & Environment Objectors’ Bill. We have admittedly been very selective in what we reproduce here – the ‘debate’ went on for ages, with many questions and responses. Readers should go directly to Hansard if they wish to read the entire debate.

Most noteworthy is:

  • Libs raise many concerns – but the Bill is not opposed
  • Greens raise many concerns – but the Bill is not opposed
  • Clearly, Dalidakis appears well and truly out of his depth!
  • Throughout the entire duration, there appeared to be approximately 15 elected members sitting in the chamber! Woeful performance from all concerned!

The Standing Committee also tabled its summary report – UPLOADED HERE

++++++

Mr DAVIS – indicate at the start that the opposition will not be opposing the bill, but we do not believe the bill achieves what the government set out to achieve. We do not believe the bill actually achieves what the government claims it achieves. We do not believe it will lead to an outcome that will see the government achieve its election commitment. It does provide some symbolic cover for the government in taking a step towards its election commitment, but it does not actually achieve the outcomes the community desires.

Let me explain to the house what this bill actually willIt will fuel community objections and it will give false hope to communities and genuine community groups that often have legitimate points to make, because if their points are not made in the way that is required by the Planning and Environment Act, they will count for nothing. The bill will give false hope. I asked representatives of one of the community groups whether this bill was in effect a hoax and they agreed that it was in effect a hoax. It is a false-hope bill, a bill that will mislead communities into believing that if there are more objections, it will make a difference. It will make a difference only if each of the objections fits within the meaning of significant social effect. I think it will lead to disharmony in communities, with no actual practical effect in the outcomes of  planning applications and objections to planning applications.

In conclusion, this bill is regarded by the government as a step towards satisfying its election commitment. I do not believe it does achieve that; I do not believe this bill achieves what it claims to achieve. It is not our intention to stand in the way of it, but I want to have my concerns, and the opposition’s concerns, recorded clearly. We believe this bill will lead to more division in the community, not better outcomes for communities. It will give false hope, and we believe there is a potential negative in terms of additional costs and additional associated legalism.

It is not a good bill. Let us be quite clear here. I have been around planning and these areas for a long time, and I have seen many bills come through this Parliament and have spoken on many of them, but rarely do I see a bill put forward by a new government that actually achieves the trifecta of having developers and builders and community groups all pointing to its deficiencies, all pointing to the fact that it fails to achieve the government’s outcome. If the government thinks this is best practice in legislation, it is very misguided.

Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan)—I rise to speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment (Recognising Objectors) Bill 2015. This is a bill that promises but does not deliver. To deliver the community’s voice in land use planning would require more than a couple of puzzling ‘must’, ‘may’ and ‘where appropriate’ phrases wrapped around ‘significant social effect’. The absence of the community’s voice in the planning scheme reflects the fundamental nature of the scheme as an impenetrably complex, inconsistent and inaccessible set of rules that are subject to ministerial veto. Instead of half window-dressing the planning scheme with unenforceable provisions in the name of giving the community a voice, how about delivering real planning reform?

Much clearer definitions of land use categories are needed, as is a planning scheme that explicitly and consistently places environmental sustainability and community needs ahead of the narrow commercial interests of developers. Banning land developer donations to political parties would be a great injection of integrity into planning. The skyline is filling up with towers full of tiny apartments with little natural light and amenity, and developers continue to cash in.

Planning reform is needed to clip the wings of the all-powerful Minister for Planning, to surrender some power back to local councils and communities. This would reduce the planning minister’s ability to mash politics into planning without transparency or accountability. The planning minister has unique power in Victoria to control all planning decisions. The unchecked power is bad for democracy, bad for community engagement in local communities and bad for consistency.

The Greens will not oppose this bill, but we do have significant concerns about it. What we are concerned about is, given that it will be a numbers game and that it reads as a numbers game, whether this will be the basis for campaigns formulated on hate, bigotry and ignorance. We would hate to see this bill drive that in a community, with people believing that it is about the number of objections that you get. Some spurious link to significant social effect will drive that in our community. We do not need that moving forward.

There is a lack of definition in relation to what is proposed here. We see a new term ‘where appropriate’ inserted should the bill be successful, but we do not know what ‘where appropriate’ means. There is no definition of that, and it is a mystery to me how we will get consistency around interpreting the Planning and Environment Act 1987 if we have 79 responsible authorities and a tribunal trying to define ‘where appropriate’, when there is a lack of definition as to what that actually means.

The bill establishes the new category of ‘must (where appropriate)’ within the Planning and Environment Act. It is our contention that this in fact does not lead to clarity but to more confusion in the Planning and Environment Act. It will be difficult for communities to understand what the act seeks to achieve because of the competing policy objectives within the legislation. On the one hand the bill gives additional powers to opponents, but on the other hand it improves the ability of community to oppose inappropriate developments if they are linked to significant social effects. It is a complete competition in terms of who wins out in that space. I am concerned that the bill will add a competing policy objective particularly into something as important as community participation in the planning process and the rights of people to object to planning applications in their municipalities.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria)—I am delighted to speak today on the Planning and Environment Amendment (Recognising Objectors) Bill 2015, which provides me with double satisfaction in that it again proves we are a government that honours its promises and keeps its commitments alongside reinforcing the most basic of democratic principles upon which this Parliament and indeed our parties are built—giving a voice to the individual.

Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan)—New section 60(1B) introduces new terms for consideration. It states: … the responsible authority must (where appropriate) have regard to the number of objectors… Can the minister provide a definition of the phrase ‘where appropriate’?

Mr DALIDAKIS (Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade)—The clause is effectively plain English. It allows the ruling judge in the case to use their discretion where appropriate in their judgement

Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan)—I have a supplementary question: in terms of the responsible authority, how does the judge’s perception of plain English and using discretion where appropriate work in practice?

Mr DALIDAKIS (Minister for Small Business,Innovation and Trade)—The clause gives discretion to the decision-maker in terms of ruling whether or not the objections are relevant or irrelevant to the case at hand.

Mr DAVIS – I understand that the practice note will be limited to the heads of power in the act—that is, the practice note cannot advance beyond the legal position that exists in the legislation, including with respect to this objectors clause.

Mr DALIDAKIS (Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade)—As I am advised, the practice note is not bound by the legislation. It will be plain English advice for people.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan)—That adds to the confusion, because if the practice note can be plain legal advice and is not bound by the legislation, I think we are into new territory. Practice notes are necessarily limited to the powers available under the act.

Mr DALIDAKIS (Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade)—I am not sure whether Mr Davis and I are on parallel tracks. Best practice is best practice, and so I am not sure whether we are getting stuck on semantics or whether I have genuinely misunderstood Mr Davis’s question or he has misunderstood my answer, both of which are conceivable. Nonetheless, best practice will be what is in the note for people to be able to utilise.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan)—On topics beyond the act.

Mr DALIDAKIS (Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade)—In relation to the legislation.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan)—In terms of people who will be affected by these developments, the minister has not provided any clarity on how they may deal with these people. These are citizens who might not have the resources to take this all the way. Before they enter into this, can the minister give them some clarity through this bill on what a ‘significant social effect’ may be and how they may proceed?

Mr DALIDAKIS (Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade)—The issue of the significance of the term ‘social effect’ is that it already exists under the terms of the act, so I am not sure that I can add anything beyond that.

 

August 4, 2015

The Leader

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

Untitled

letters

 

August 2, 2015

A Resident’s Query

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

A resident has contacted us asking why Glen Eira ratepayers should be subsidising residents from other municipalities. This is not the first time this issue has raised its ugly head. Remember the GESAC basketball debacle when the ‘contract’ was awarded not to McKinnon Basketball Association but to what can be termed ‘outsiders’. Since then, all quiet on the western front – with no information as to whether all court time is now utilised as per ‘contract’ or whether ratepayers are still ‘subsidising’ the officer decision. Then there’s the issue of GESAC not recognising and providing a discount to countless ‘senior’ residents as other council pools do. And of course, each year admission and membership prices have gone up. Thus this resident’s query and ‘evidence’ presented below –

Hi there love your web site and the debates listed on there. I do have a great thing this so called council has been doing. I was at my grandmother’s place the other day who lives in Frankston and noticed that she had a letter from Glen Eira Council. Being a rate payer myself the curiosity got the better of me and had to have a look to see what it was. It was a bill for exercise classes. I questioned my grandmother what this was and she informed me that she goes to exercise classes some where in Bentleigh which is subsidised by the Council. My question is why as a rate payer are we subsidising people from other municipality to use Council services? I asked my grandmother if there were are clients that did not live in Glen Eira and she said there is quite a few in her class.

000027106_Page_2

 

July 31, 2015

One For The Little Guy!

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

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1096.html

Another VCAT decision raises major questions about the decision making capabilities of Council’s planning department. An application went in for 8 townhouses of three storey height in Grange Road Ormond. The land is 874 square metres and zoned GRZ1. The permit was appealed against by a neighbour and VCAT upheld the objection.

What is significant in this decision is that the member confirms that ‘policy’ supports 3 storey developments. However, there are plenty of comments made about internal amenity, safety of car parking proposals, and landscaping. All basic requirements that any planning department worth a cracker should have picked up on and consequently refused the permit. In Glen Eira, the permit was granted!

Here are some extracts:

On Landscaping

Mr Crawford (developer) put to me that modest landscaping is proposed along both the pedestrian and vehicular accessways and that landscaping is not a strong character evident in the adjoining properties or area. On my inspection, I observed that there is a level of landscaping evident in the area. The street trees make a contribution as do the existing trees on the adjoining sites. There has been no real attempt to soften the visual impact of the built form to the adjoining boundaries. There is minimal opportunity for landscaping on the southern boundary with landscaping limited to a series of ‘islands’ along the boundary where you would anticipate some tree planting. There is also minimal landscaping provided on the northern boundary. The northern interfaces comprises of a 1.6 metre wide pedestrian path providing access to each of the eight units. The plans detail a landscape strip along the boundary……The provision of landscaping along boundaries is hardly a new design technique that is difficult to achieve. Even if I was to accept the submission that landscaping is not a strong character in the neighbourhood, as a bare minimum, clause 55.03-8 Landscaping objectives seeks ‘To provide appropriate landscaping’. I find the provision of landscaping as proposed, is not appropriate and fails to achieve the objective of clause 55.03-8.

On Internal Amenity

The continuous linear form of the development and the setbacks to the adjoining boundaries has resulted in the need for screening to every window at the first and second floor levels to a height of 1.7 metres. The screening is required to protect the adjoining properties from overlooking. This continuous attached form compromises the internal amenity for future occupants. There is not one window that has an uninterrupted or obscure view to the sky. There is not one window that has an outlook. It is noted that the ground floor bedroom windows are not required to be screened to a height of 1.7 metres but are sited 1.4 metres from the ground as they are located on the pedestrian pathway that provides access to each of the units. It is often put that there is a compromise to be made between providing affordable housing and levels of amenity. It was also put to me by Mr Crawford (for developer) that ‘…one must also appreciate that planning decision making is concerned with appropriate, not optimal or ideal, outcomes …..’. I acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck, but in this case, the internal amenity impacts are a result of the proposed form of the site to develop eight townhouses. Fewer houses on site may enable this issue to be dealt with differently. Fewer houses may enable a design to provide an outlook to at least the living area if not bedrooms. As it is proposed, I find that the level of internal amenity to the future occupants is poor and the design is not a good planning outcome.

On Car Parking

The car accommodation is provided at grade in the undercroft of the building. Mr Robertson (for developer) in his evidence detailed that Design Standard 2 of clause 52.06-8 provides minimum dimensions of car parking spaces and accessways. The narrowest accessway width is shown as 4.8 metres (although less in some places). To confirm access to the car spaces, he provided swept paths which detail multiple movements to access the car spaces. It was his evidence that in residential developments where the user becomes familiar with the car space, a three-point entry and exit into the car spaces is acceptable. The car spaces are the minimum possible. Whilst it can be demonstrated that a car can enter and exit with multiple moves, the question is does it satisfy the objective of clause 55.03-10 [Parking location):

To provide convenient parking for resident and visitor vehicles.

To protect residents from vehicular noise within developments.

I find that the parking accommodation is a poor outcome. Combined in the parking space is an overhead storage unit for each dwelling which is to sit above the car space and presumably above the door to the units. The car accommodation is ‘squeezed’ onto the site. It only meets the minimum standards and as it is open at grade car park with little opportunity for landscaping along the southern boundary. I am also concerned with the potential for noise to not only the residents within the development but adjoining to the south. The constrained nature of the design of the car park accommodation leads me to conclude that what is proposed is an unsatisfactory design response.

In terms of car parking numbers, the proposal meets the statutory requirement for the provision of resident parking and seeks a reduction in the provision of one visitor car space. I do not consider the reduction of one visitor car space inappropriate.

 

July 29, 2015

What Pro-Active Councils Do!

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

Bayside council is currently undertaking community consultation on its draft C140 Amendment which will apply to areas zoned Neighbourhood Residential. Aside from the content, the methodology of this consultation stands in stark contrast to current practices in Glen Eira. Please note:

  • An online survey
  • An 8 page explanatory booklet in plain English
  • Clear explanations on the website – Glen Eira residents have to be ‘satisfied’ with the regurgitation of incomprehensible jargon contained in the public advertising and with only a link to the department as follow up!
  • Formal submissions
  • Links to documents

Source: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/caring_for_bayside/6801.htm

This amendment seeks to:

  • Limit subdivision size to 400 square metres. Glen Eira has no minimal subdivision size. In fact, Council granted 487 Neerim Road permission for 8 subdivisions. These all ranged in size from 199 square metres to just over 200 square metres! With no minimal subdivision size, this means that it is hypothetically possible for landowners and developers to subdivide and then subdivide again. In other words – 4 dwellings on a lot instead of the much vaunted 2 dwellings per lot. We expect developers to cotton on to this loophole very soon.
  • Permeability of 35%. Glen Eira prides itself on achieving that massive percentage of a piddling 25% which has been in place since 2004 and we wonder how hard our ‘negotiators’ really tried to increase this quotient! Please remember that there are other councils with as much as 40% permeability requirements!
  • Private open space to equal 75 square metres – a minimum of which must be 60 square metres and 5 metres wide. In Glen Eira, residents are stuck with – “An area of 60 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 4 metres and convenient access from a living room”.

Bayside is also basing its draft on a 2012 Housing Strategy and is currently reviewing its Planning Scheme. Again, compare and contrast with what Glen Eira is doing!!!!!

 

July 28, 2015

Value For Money?

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

A reading of recent VCAT judgements can only lead to the conclusion that Council’s presentations at VCAT are not only sub-standard, but that the necessary work required has simply not been done. When millions upon millions of ratepayer funds are used to fund a planning department, then it is incumbent on that planning department to ensure that when it fronts up to VCAT, that it has done its required homework and that all documentation supports council’s decisions.

Council continually uses VCAT as a scapegoat complaining that council ‘policies’ are overlooked, ignored, etc. But when the Planning Scheme is entirely silent on an issue; when so many ‘tools’ are missing that could restrict over-development, and when council itself chooses to over-ride its own scheme, then VCAT is definitely not the culprit that Council would like residents to believe.

Two important and recent judgements provide plenty of evidence for our above assertions.

2-4 Penang Street, McKinnon (See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1073.html)

Readers will remember the huge community reaction to this application for a 3 storey apartment block in a GRZ1 zone. Because of the number of objections, publicity, etc councillors voted to reject the application. This is part of the published VCAT judgement. Please note, that ‘no decision’ has as yet been made. It represents an ‘interim’ order, giving the applicant the opportunity to fix up a few details and to resubmit an amended application. Here are some extracts – but residents need to read the entire decision.

…..the planning scheme encourages a significant degree of change in the built form and density of development in this neighbourhood

The residents do not want an apartment building on this site. Many of them are opposed to the significant extent of change envisaged and encouraged for this neighbourhood in the planning scheme. The Tribunal must consider the acceptability of a proposal having regard to the physical context and the planning policies and controls that are in the planning scheme or that are seriously proposed to be included in the planning scheme (e.g. a well advanced planning scheme amendment). In this case, the Council has not advised that there are any proposed planning scheme amendments of relevance. Hence, we must consider and give weight to the planning scheme policies and controls. If the residents consider these controls and policies are not appropriate for this neighbourhood, that is a matter for them to pursue with the Council acting in its role as the planning authority for the municipality (responsible for proposing changes to its planning scheme).

If there was any doubt about the extent of change envisaged for this neighbourhood (e.g. units and townhouses rather than apartments), the nomination of a maximum building height clarifies this. A building height of 10.5-11.5 metres is not akin to the mostly two storey recent developments referred to by Mr Ziltzer. Rather, it is a three storey building height. This means a three storey apartment building on this site is an acceptable planning outcome.

We agree with the residents that the available on-street car parking lessens as you get closer to the train station. The residents also said there is limited on-street parking around the Clarendon Terrace retirement village next door in Graham Avenue due primarily to staff and visitor parking. We did not experience this during our inspection of the site and surrounds, which may have been due in part to the fact that it was a weekday when there may be a fewer number of visitors to Claremont Terrace. Nevertheless, even if we accept the residents submissions on this point, we also have Ms Dunstan’s expert evidence that includes car parking surveys. These surveys demonstrate that there is available on-street parking immediately surrounding this site on all days of the week. The Council does not oppose the proposed reduction of one on-site visitor car space and raises no concern about any impact upon available on-street parking. On the basis of Ms Dunstan’s evidence and the Council’s support for this aspect of the proposal, one additional residential visitor car parking on the street is an acceptable outcome that will not adversely impact upon the general availability of on-street parking.

Mr Morgan questioned the accuracy of the shadow diagrams, particularly the afternoon shadow impact upon the rear open space area of 6 Penang Street. We note that the accuracy of these shadow diagrams was raised during the processing of the permit application and there is a comment in the Council officer’s report that the shadow plans would be checked by both the Applicant and the Council officers (as a result of the Planning Conference with a councillor, council officers, objectors and the Applicant). This does not appear to have happened and Mr and Mrs Morgan are frustrated and concerned about this. We asked the Applicant to review and update the afternoon shadow diagram during the hearing. This was provided on day 2 of the hearing and it generally accords with Mr Morgan’s estimate of the extent of shadow. The 3pm shadow will extend almost to the east side of the rear addition of Mr and Mrs Morgan’s house. This impact is acceptable as it leaves the majority of the rear secluded private open space area, including the area in the centre and to the southeast, free of shadow.

Overall, there will be a significant change to the west side of 6 Penang Street and the outlook from the west facing windows and from within the rear open space area will be different. This extent of change is acceptable because of the planning controls and policies that apply to this area.

The residents submit in 2011 water flowed down Graham Avenue, along an open drain that abuts the southern rear boundary of this site, through this site (both 2 and 4 Penang Street), onto Penang Street and then across into the properties on the north side of Penang Street, including Mr and Mrs Forstmanis’ property. The residents also submit that cars floated down Graham Avenue. These submissions about the path of overland flow do not accord with the mapping of the SBO. The Council made no submissions about this issue during the hearing. Its drainage engineering referral comments request no net increase in peak stormwater runoff in Council’s drainage network with post development stormwater discharge to be maintained at pre-development level for 10 year ARI. There is no mention of whether there are any potential overland flow issues for the basement car park or the ground floor apartments, particularly those cut into the natural ground level. The Applicant submits this issue is a matter for the drainage authorities to address by reviewing the SBO in light of submissions such as those made by these residents. The Applicant sought advice from the Council during the hearing about this issue. We were told the Applicant was unable to obtain any information about a flood level for this site, and that the Applicant was advised there is no proposal to place a flooding overlay on this site.

Melbourne Water’s views have not been sought during this permit application process; and it is not known whether the extent of impervious surfaces proposed with the cut into the natural ground level is acceptable given the submissions that this site and much of the surrounding area are liable to overland flow.

In light of the mapped extent of the SBO in Penang Street and the residents submissions and photographs tendered about the overland flow, we are concerned about whether the basement may be liable to flooding and whether the ground floor units and associated paved courtyards cut into the natural ground may be liable to overland flow from the south (e.g. the rear open drain and Graham Avenue). This is a matter that should be further considered and addressed as part of the preparation of amended plans in response to our interim order. We note that the Housing Diversity Area Policy at clause 22.07-3.2 has specific policies for those areas that are affected by a SBO. This includes recognising that such areas may have a limited capacity for multi-unit development as they are liable to inundation from overland flows. Whilst this site is not in a SBO, we are not persuaded any implications associated with the potential for overland flow have been fully considered. Given all of these circumstances, we have decided that the views of Melbourne Water and the Council’s drainage engineering section should be specifically sought on any amended plans for this proposal.

This brings us to the most difficult issue in this case – how does this proposal respect the neighbourhood character? The purpose of the General Residential Zone (GRZ) includes implementing neighbourhood character policy and encouraging development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. Clause 55 elaborates on this by encouraging development that either respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. A preferred character would be one identified through a neighbourhood character policy. In this case, the Council submits there is no preferred neighbourhood character statement or policy because this site is in a Housing Diversity Area. Unfortunately, the Housing Diversity Area Policy provides no helpful guidance on how development in such areas should respect the neighbourhood character. Similarly, the Schedule to the GRZ does not contain any requirements other than the maximum height of 10.5-11.5 metres. So we are left with having to make a decision about how a modern three storey apartment building will respect the existing neighbourhood character.

 

411-415 Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick (See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1074.html)

This application was in Commercial 1 zone and within a Heritage Overlay. The application was refused by both Council and VCAT. However, once again, the refusal was achieved because of the VCAT member’s concerns, and not anything that Council put up.

The Council did not raise any internal amenity concerns in their grounds of refusal. Nor did they raise any concerns in their submission at the hearing, or in their questioning of the expert witnesses. In contrast, I have some serious and significant concerns regarding the potential for the future occupants of these dwellings to experience an acceptable or reasonable level of amenity. I have two main areas of concern.

  • My first concern is regarding the overall size and layout of some of the apartments that face either north or south. Inherent in this design is an effort to squeeze as many apartments as possible with either a northern aspect to the public car park or a southerly aspect to Glen Huntly Road. On the one hand, this intent is a positive one as it is far preferable to have apartments face public land, rather than adjoining private properties. On the other hand, when taken too far it has the potential of creating very narrow apartments. I fear that this is one design response where a good intent has been taken too far. As a result, there are a number of apartments that are relatively narrow, as evidenced by a living space that is around 2.8 metres wide. Of the 32 apartments proposed in this development, 14 have a living space of this width.
  • Surprising, 12 of these 14 apartments comprise two bedrooms, and so will potentially have a larger number of occupants than the one bedroom apartments. In some cases these narrow living spaces are combined with relatively tight bedrooms, at around 2.7 by 2.8 metres. In some apartments, these narrow living areas are provided in relatively small apartments, with two of the two bedroom apartments measuring 55.8 square metres, and another at 56.2 square metres.
  • I sought to explore my concerns with Mr D’Amico and Mr Sheppard, and also received submissions from Mr Pitt. I think it is fair to conclude that the apartments that are before me are at the smaller end of the spectrum of what might be considered acceptable apartments, where some of the internal spaces are rather tight. What I sought to do with my questioning of Mr D’Amico in particular is to try to establish whether these apartments sat within the range of acceptability, or whether indeed they have spaces that bring into question their usability and functionality, and their ability to provide a reasonable level of amenity. I accept that such a decision is a matter of subjective judgement, in the absence of any set of standards that I might apply to apartment designs. However it is a subjective decision that I take very seriously.
  • My second concern is with the proposal to design one inboard apartment on each level, with a sole orientation to the western side boundary. On each level this inboard apartment consists of one bedroom, and ranges in size from 45.6 to 46.2 square metres. The apartment has a 5.9 square metre balcony, and both the balcony and the living room window are set 4.4 metres from the western boundary, and in a light court measuring 5.7 metres wide. Three sides of the light court are enclosed by the proposed development to the top of the fifth floor. The only opening to this light court below the top of the fifth floor is via the adjoining property to the west.

Conclusions & Questions

  • Why does this Council continually front up to VCAT without the necessary ‘evidence’ to support its decision making?
  • Why doesn’t Council do what it stated it would do at the planning conferences – ie shadow diagrams review?
  • Why doesn’t council know what areas are subjected to flooding and why haven’t the SBO’s been reviewed?
  • Why is there no ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ statements for Housing Diversity Areas? Why is Council not pursuing an amendment to introduce such controls?
  • Why are applicant’s often ‘dubious’ traffic reports accepted at face value without council checking for veracity?
  • Why does ‘internal amenity’ rarely get a mention in council’s reports and arguments?
  • How much longer will Council continue with the farce that all the problems can be laid at the feet of VCAT?
  • How much more of ratepayer’s money will be expended on substandard presentations at VCAT?
 

July 27, 2015

Lipshutz, Hyams & Pilling – Their Handiwork!

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

Carnegie’s 1880s Frogmore House tower demolished after being deemed unworthy of heritage protection

  • Andrea Kellett
  • July 25, 2015 12:00AM
The historic Frogmore House tower in Carnegie has been demolished. Picture: Valeriu Campa

The historic Frogmore House tower in Carnegie has been demolished. Picture: Valeriu Campan.

THE tower at Carnegie’s historic Frogmore House has been demolished.

The 1880s feature has been bulldozed six weeks after Glen Eira Council deemed the property unworthy of local heritage protection.

Glen Eira Residents Association president Bette Hatfield said it was “an absolute disgrace”.

The bulldozers were sent in after an unusual, split council vote was won by just three councillors.

Crs Michael Lipshutz, Neil Pilling and Jamie Hyams voted to abandon plans to protect the property.

The site post bulldozing. Picture: Valeriu Campan.

The site post bulldozing. Picture: Valeriu Campan.

The Frogmore House site when demolition began earlier this month.

The Frogmore House site when demolition began earlier this month.

Councillors Thomas Sounness, Oscar Lobo and Karina Okotel had wanted other options explored; Mayor Jim Magee was absent and Crs Mary Delahunty and Margaret Esakoff declared conflicts of interest and did not vote.

More than 1000 residents had petitioned the council to save Frogmore House.

New owner Jewish Care will now redevelop the 7,917sq m site into a 120-bed Jewish aged care centre.

++++++++

And the current online comments –

The Glen Eira City Council are a disgrace. In our residential street we have an 8 storey apartment block being built in an area where the highest building is two storeys. The crane is up and when the sun pops out you can clearly see the over-shadowing of all the houses across the street. During winter none of these poor people will get any sun. To rub salt into their wounds – the apartment developers applied for and won dispensation from providing the minimum required of car-spaces per apartment – citing that because the building is across the road from the railway station they do not need to provide as many car spaces. So our street will now be over crowded, over shadowed, over developed with an ugly apartment block the Council sat back and allowed to happen. Money talks and politicians always yell “How High?” when developers throw cash at them. This country has become a disgrace. All politicians care about is getting voted in and squeezing as much cash out of us and helping their buddies at the top end of town. When will enough be enough?

Two of the councillors who opposed the heritage listing appear to have Jewish surnames?

How is it we live in a world where 1000 people want this historic 1880 building saved and it is not considered worth saving ? We have so many conflicts of interest and back room deals going on and the end result is another piece of history gets bulldozed

Really poor form by this council who have failed their residents

what no Australians allowed what a disgrace

A disgrace. We have sold our souls in melbourne. Anything can be demolished.

Yes i wish they would demolish councils full stop

 

July 25, 2015

Politics 101!

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

Untitled

 

July 23, 2015

A Clayton’s Council With Clayton’s Resolutions

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

The last Planning Scheme Review was conducted in 2010, with a Discussion Paper, that was anything but a genuine discussion paper. Crucial issues were ignored; information was scant and skewed; and all subsequent actions were to be done ‘internally’. That is a euphemism for non-community participation! When the ‘review’ finally made it onto the council agenda, the resolution endorsed the ‘action plan’. Of course, barely a fraction of what was promised 5 years ago has been done. Now we have the situation that this out-of-date Planning Scheme will not be ‘reviewed’ for at least another 18 months – and that’s on top of councillors knowing full well that there are so many deficiencies that the whole scheme requires immediate attention and amendment. But what has Council done? Asked the Minister for a two year extension on having to review the scheme. The Minister agreed to a one year extension. Thus residents have seen their suburbs destroyed because of the failure to act and close off the countless loopholes that ensure developers will get what they want.

Below is a page taken from the 2010 item on the Planning Scheme Review. It illustrates perfectly how resolutions in Glen Eira mean absolutely nothing. They are continually ignored and consigned to the dustbin of history, or overturned when it suits those with vested interests – ie removal of the conservatory in Caulfield Park; heritage protection for Frogmore; creation of a significant Tree Register. But none of these betrayals equals what has been happening (or more correctly, not happening) in the domain of planning. The highlighted sections of the image below indicate what was promised 5 years ago, and many even repeat what was stated as ‘action items’ from 2003! That’s what resolutions mean in Glen Eira – bugger all. Please remember this when you vote next year!

Pages from 2010August10-2010-MINUTES

 

July 21, 2015

Amendment Abandoned

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

Hyams moved to abandon amendment plus ‘affirming’ Amendment C75 (which set up the C1 in the centre and 10 storey heights) and Plan Melbourne. Lobo seconded.

HYAMS: went basically went through the officer’s report outlining the history of the site and what occurred with C75 amendment in 2010. There was ‘maximum of 2000 square metres of retail’ with this amendment so that ‘it would service the people who work there’. Council sent 600 notifications and got 15 submissions – objectors didn’t turn up to the Panel hearing. In 2012 Minister changed zoning and now developer wants to put up to 1250 apartments and 12000 square metres of retail. Said that there are two options before council – to send to a panel or abandon amendment. On officer’s recommendation to go to panel said that this was ‘not an unreasonable recommendation’ because that would mean ‘we do some more investigation’ and the panel would ‘weigh up’ the evidence and make their own recommendations which council is then ‘free to accept or reject’ or modify. It then goes to the Minister. However, he thinks that sending it to a panel ‘would be a waste of everyone’s time and money and effort. ‘ Claimed that this view was only formed ‘late last week’ after he read the objections. In fact, ‘I can’t see myself ever supporting what the applicant is asking for’. Has ‘grave concerns’ about the ‘residential component’ and the impact on traders and ‘allowing this to proceed to the Development Plan Process’. Stated that Gillon ‘proposed’ that the amendment be changed to 1250 apartments but officers’ advice was that this may not have ‘statutary weight’. He thought that even 1250 and 3000 people is ‘still too many for this site by a long way’.

Unlike Caulfield Village this isn’t a ‘transport hub’ with only buses and would ‘increase population’ by 10% in East Bentleigh, plus the retail component could do ‘significant’ harm to local traders and shopping strips. Said council received a ‘peer review’ on the applicant’s retail impact statement and that ‘points out’ that shops ‘on the border of Glen Eira’ were ignored by the applicant’s consultants.

Said that ‘neither’ the residential or retail ‘fit our strategy for this site’ which is for Virginia Estate to ‘continue to be an employment hub’. His ‘concern’ with the Development Plan process was that if the amendment is passed and they make a ‘subsequent decision on the Development Plan’ that is ‘ultimately reviewable by VCAT’ and ‘I absolutely have no faith in VCAT’. He wants ‘something of this significance to remain under Council control’ and not the ‘whims of VCAT’.

On the survey it was ‘not from Council’ and people have two choices – either they believe it is a conspiracy or incompetence and he sees it as incompetence because he doesn’t believe that ‘the applicant actually intended to mislead’ people. But ‘the nature of the questions’ were ‘fairly distasteful’ and ‘designed to produce the desired outcome’. But ‘distasteful as is it’ they ‘don’t make planning decisions to punish’ people and so ‘this hasn’t influenced my decision’.

Wanted to address some comments made at the Planning Conference. Once was from Staikos who ‘said that it is the new planning zones that are causing development’. Said that ‘our new planning zones are not causing development’ since apart from ‘one small patch’ developers can’t build what they could before and there’s only been a ‘rush in development’ between the announcement and the gazetting because developers tried to get their applications in on the old system. Others question why council is ‘only getting 5.7%’ as an open space levy. Said that ‘experts’ determined how council ‘could get the most money’ and they said that a ‘flat rate’ for all areas was better because if they wanted more for sites such as Virginia Estate then ‘we couldn’t have got’ the 5.7% for the rest of Glen Eira. In fact the ‘person who raised that at the conference was responsible for holding up’ the amendment and costing council ‘one million dollars’. So ‘that’s what you call chutzpah’.

Now the applicant can ‘get on’ with developing the park according to Amendment C75 ‘which is in accordance with our strategy’ or they can put in a new amendment together with a planning application and ‘that way we know what we’re getting’.   This was one major cause for worry for residents and councillors because ‘beyond broad parameters’ no-one knows ‘what they’re getting’. So with an amendment and planning application ‘we know what we’re getting and we make the decision’ and ‘not VCAT’.

LOBO: ‘I rise to speak for the people of East Bentleigh’. ‘People elected me to represent them and I will’. Said he won’t support amendment because ‘people do not want’ it. ‘My loyalty is towards the people of East Bentleigh’.

PILLING: said he chaired the planning conference which was a ‘good meeting’. Wanted to thank the community for their input. Said he supports the motion for 2 ‘chief’ reasons – lack of public transport and it’s not like the Caulfield Village which has a major transport rail line. Other reasons was ‘concern’ from the traders’ associations. The amendment isn’t ‘suitable and doesn’t fit our strategy’. Agreed with Hyams on the new zones that ‘you can’t get something now that you couldn’t before’ and that ‘you could probably get less now’. Plus ‘drawing a long bow’ then all parties at federal level are responsible because they ‘encourage population growth’. ‘Our job is to manage that population growth and set standards’. There’s been a lot of ‘criticism’ of council. Most ‘constructive’ but some ‘over the top’ and that’s like ‘criticising an umpire before the decision is made’. ‘Overall’ he ‘welcomes the community’s input’.

DELAHUNTY: said that in ‘making my mind up’ she is concentrating on ‘three particular areas’ – strategic reasons, planning reasons and community input. If she lets this go to a planning panel then didn’t think that she would be ‘upholding’ the premises of ‘local government’ – ie ‘listen to the community’ and then apply the strategic and planning ideas. Said mainly to the ‘applicant’ that when ‘you seek community consultation’ this must be done with ‘integrity’ and is ‘about a two way conversation’ and not just about ‘telling the community what you are about to do’. So it’s listening, ‘taking on board’ what people say and then ‘making some changes along the way’. Conceded that there ‘had been some belated attempts to do so’ and she commended the applicant on that. SAid that the Municipal Strategic Statement from the planning scheme identifies this as moving from industrial to a ‘really important employment node’. Said that ‘I don’t see any strategic reason’ why this objective should ‘go’. On planning grounds, if there is to be the upholding of this site as an employment zone then ‘commercial 2 is the best way to do this’. So, ‘I don’t find that there are planning reasons to move this forward’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he suggested at one point that a panel would be the ‘best way to go’ so that residents could go and make submissions and it would come back and ‘we could look at it’. But he then ‘thought’ about it and decided that even if it went to a panel “I couldn’t support it, so why go to a panel in the first place?’ Repeated that ‘we intended this to be an employment hub’ and won’t be ‘under this proposal’. ‘I don’t think you can trust what the developer has said’. Hyams said incompetence, he suggests ‘conspiracy and they’ve been ‘deceptive’. Said there’s been ‘bandied around’ 4000 and 1250 units but ‘I don’t know what’s going to happen and I don’t trust them’. But ‘that’s not the reason’ why he is voting as he is. This ‘isn’t C60’ and isn’t CaulfieldStation and it will ‘kill business in this whole area’. Said he wanted to see the area ‘developed’ and for it ‘to go forward’. ‘Not something that is forced on the community’.

SOUNNESS: Said he was sure that the applicants don’t consider the issue as ‘dead’ and there will ‘have to be a discussion and the presentation of something new’. For people in the gallery there ‘will be more discussion in the future’ on ‘how is this going to be the best thing for Glen Eira’ and how ‘to meet the needs and expectations of residents’. He expects the applicant will now ‘have a chat’ with the community and officers. Suggested that ‘you maintain an eye out’ and ‘stay aware’ of any developments and ‘be part of the conversation’. It’s the ‘applicant’s land’ but ‘your city’ and the job of council is to ‘mediate’ between the two to achieve the best outcome. Said there are gaps in the planning scheme and that’s made him ‘uncomfortable’.

ESAKOFF: said that this has a ‘long history’ and she remembers her childhood when it was W.D & H. Wills. Glad that there has been such a great response from the community because it’s been a ‘terrific exercise in community consultation’. The amendment ‘doesn’t meet council’s strategic planning’ or council’s ‘sustainable transport’ strategy that seeks higher density in transport hubs. This isn’t one of those transport hubs. Admitted that council ‘tried hard’ to get the bus to go down East Boundary for GESAC but ‘to no avail’ and if council ‘can’t get it’ she didn’t know how the developer could.

OKOTEL: thanked both applicant and residents for the ‘amount’ of ‘information that was provided’ because ‘this was critical in our decision making’ and ‘helped us raise questions with the officers’ . Agreed with others and mainly about the impact of ‘density’ and what this means for residents in the area in terms of ‘traffic and infrastructure’. Even though she wasn’t a councillor when C75 came in, she thought this was a ‘better fit for the area’ than leaving it as ‘industrial’. However, ‘changing the zoning would lead to over-development’ and therefore can’t see ‘any reason why’ the amendment should go to a panel.

MAGEE: said that in his 7 years on council ‘nothing has scared me more’ than this. He lives in East Bentleigh and the weight of the decision meant many ‘sleepless nights’. Accepted that the ‘developer’ is trying to ‘maximise the return on his investment’ but the ‘cost is our community’. East Bentleigh was the most liveable city but not if this goes through. ‘Something will be built on this site’ but if it’s about ‘land’ then every inch is important in Glen Eira. Said that council has to ‘maximise’ open space ‘where we can’ but ‘more importantly we have to maximise the amenity’. We know that there will be ‘change’ because there are 1000 residents each year who ‘want to come and live with us’. SAid the developer has to think whether it’s all about ‘maximising’ profit or also giving residents ‘something that benefits them’. Amendment C75 is not ‘in place’ and thought that ‘we will be back here in 18 months time’. Ultimately ‘it’s about maximising the best use of the land’ and he doesn’t ‘want this change’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (APPLAUSE FROM GALLERY)

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »