August 20, 2015

VCAT Versus Council Ineptitude!

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

Several recent VCAT decisions reveal in full, glorious detail, the utter fumbling, Keystone Cops approach by our planners, elected representatives AND the countless drawbacks (failings) of the Planning Scheme. We also draw attention to the incestuous nature of the development industry. Former Glen Eira planners are now working for private companies and appearing in the very same role they had with council (ie Andrew Bromley was council’s officer at VCAT. He now appears at VCAT for the developer. Ms Bowden is also with the same company).

There is definitely a ‘cut and paste’ mentality in many of the decisions and conditions handed down by council. Entire slabs are transferred willy-nilly from one application to another, without it would appear, having any sound basis. Conditions imposed become the modus operandi of a council fighting its own planning scheme. Often, as in the following decisions, residents have to wonder whether common sense and competence have entirely deserted those involved.

Decision #1 – 14-16 Elliot Avenue, Carnegie. The application was for 4 storeys and 21 dwellings. Officers recommended a permit and councillors decided (as per their usual tactic) to lop off one storey and increase setbacks. Lobo was the only councillor to vote against the Esakoff and Okotel motion. (Zoned RGZ1) In her decision, the member rejected most of the conditions imposed by Council and modified countless others.

The top floor required to be deleted by the contested condition is recessed from the lower floors. The setback of this floor meets Standard B17 of Clause 55.04. As an interface with its neighbours, the proposal meets the test of side and rear setbacks. If Council is of the view that a four storey presentation to Elliott Avenue is not appropriate, there are ways of managing it, such as further setting it back from the street rather than deleting the whole floor altogether, with a loss of three dwellings. On policy and emerging character basis, this condition is not justified and will be deleted.

This condition requires the basement to be setback a minimum of 3 metres from the rear (eastern boundary) and 5 metres from the front (western) boundary. The reason for this condition is to provide adequate ground soil volume to achieve the landscaping required by Condition 9. ….. Council submitted that the extent of the basement footprint would significantly constrain the ability to provide canopy trees. It reasoned that the additional setback of 2 metres at the front and 1.2 metres at the rear, (currently proposed at 3 metres at the front and 1.8 metres at the rear) would provide additional in-ground landscaping opportunities to soften the building. …..In opposing this condition, Mr. Bromley cited a number of Tribunal decisions where Council has sought permit conditions to increase setbacks for the purpose of landscaping[4] and which were rejected by the Tribunal. In fact, the depth of setback from Elliott Avenue sought by Council at No. 2 Belsize Avenue is 3 metres[5] and 2.8 metre for 330 Neerim Road[6], and not the 5 metres sought in this matter…..If a 3 metre setback was considered by Council to be adequate for landscaping elsewhere in the area, requiring a 5 metre setback in this instance is excessive. I accept Mr. Bromley’s submission that it is not necessary to further increase the setback of 3 metres from the front and 1.8 metres from the rear. This condition will be deleted.

This condition requires part of the northern bedroom of Unit 102 that cantilevers into the front setback to be deleted. Council submitted that this part of the bedroom of the dwelling cantilevers over the ground floor into the front setback area, and that removal of this part of the bedroom would reduce the dominance of the building when viewed from the public realm. A careful reading of the design of this part of the building indicates otherwise. The cantilevering of this dwelling is not confined to the bedroom, but the living and dining area of that dwelling. Even if the wall of the bedroom is recessed according to this condition, the balance of the northern elevation of that dwelling still cantilevers over the ground floor. I cannot understand the purpose of this condition. It will be deleted.

The remaining contested condition is 1q) which requires written confirmation from a qualified traffic engineer demonstrating that the basement and ramp complies with Clause 52.06 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, and that vehicular access is acceptable. Condition 1d) already requires the basement access and layout to comply with Clause 52.06 and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. If it does not and is not approved by Council, such a layout does not become part of the endorsed plan. This condition is superfluous. (and deleted).

Decision #2 – 64-66 Bent Street, McKinnon – application for part 3 and part 4 storey with 31 dwellings. Council officers recommended permit. Councillors refused permit but only after Sounness and Pilling lost a motion to grant a permit with conditions. Hyams and Esakoff then moved to reject. Final vote was 5 to 4 with Magee, Pilling, Sounness and Lipshutz opposing refusal.

It is important to note that this policy is not about respecting the existing neighbourhood character. There is no preferred neighbourhood character nominated for housing diversity areas. For residential development, it is about scale relative to the commercial centre, for it not to dominate the streetscape, and promotion of site consolidation to maximise development opportunities.

It also means that the scale and building mass of a development, if it is not at the edge against a lower intensity zone such as Neighbourhood Residential Zone (a minimal change area) would not be the same as the existing low scale single storey single dwelling character of an area, if that were the current character.

Decision #3 – 1A Orrong Crescent & 632 Inkerman Road, Caulfield. 4 storey mixed use; 18 dwellings, 3 shops. Zoned C1Z. Officers recommended permit with conditions. Councillors voted unanimously for 3 storeys and 16 dwellings.

Condition 1(a) requires deletion of the third floor (top level) and the roof replaced by a style that is consistent with the architectural style of the building, and which may include pitched forms. This condition was not a recommendation of Council officer’s, and has the most severe impact on the yield of the development. Condition (d) requires additional setback of the third floor. As this condition is to require further setback of the top floor which is required to be deleted, it contradicts Condition 1(a).

As for policies, there is common ground that the site is not specifically covered by a policy that relates to a site in a Commercial 1 Zone and which is not part of an activity centre. The commercial centre in Kooyong Road just south of Inkerman Road is not contiguous to the site. That centre contains single, double, and 3 storey commercial buildings. The site is in the Commercial 1 Zone, and the existing building has been a commercial building for many years, decades before planning controls. As for the notion that the site should be treated as if it is in a residential zone such as the Neighbourhood Residential Zone as its surrounding properties, it is not so in fact or law.

How many more times must council be knocked back on attempting to include the no parking permits as a condition of a permit instead of in the ‘notes’? Obviously very, very slow learners – or do they even bother to read, analyse and assess VCAT decisions?

This condition requires the permit holder to inform all purchasers about this planning permit with regard to Note C. Note C states that residents of the dwellings in this development will not be issued Residential parking Permit (including visitor parking permits). Council explained that it is its standard practice that residents of medium density development do not qualify for residential parking permits, and that this condition will ensure that all purchasers are informed of this position. A permit condition is a requirement. Once the development is complete, there is no further requirement to be met. A ‘Note’ is information and not a requirement of the permit. It is not appropriate to make a ‘Note’ as if it is a requirement of the permit.

Decision #4 – 482-4 North Road, Ormond. Application was for 4 storeys and 24 dwellings. Officers recommended deletion of 3 dwellings and other conditions. Councillor majority voted for 4 storeys and 19 dwellings. Zoned MUZ

My discretion regarding the appropriate setbacks to the south boundary is guided by the provisions of the zone and by the planning policy framework. The land is within the Mixed Use Zone. The purposes of the zone are to implement policy, to provide for housing at higher densities and to encourage development that responds to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character of the area. There are no specific design requirements in a schedule or overlays.

I consider the local policy framework strongly encourages robust built form in the Ormond NAC. It is one of the preferred locations in Glen Eira for higher density housing that can contribute to broad housing diversity objectives. This necessarily means buildings in these areas would be taller, with greater massing and bulk than the prevailing lower density single dwellings.

I have noted above that clause 32.04-6 specifically excludes standard B20 as one of the clause 55 amenity tests to be met. I accept it must be considered as part of the overall assessment. I consider this specific exclusion was intended to convey an expectation that the bulk and massing of a building in a Mixed Use Zone could be somewhat more robust and intensive than might be acceptable in the other residential zones. This is to facilitate more intensive buildings in this zone, including commercial and industrial buildings that typically have higher floor to ceiling heights relative to residential buildings.

Finally, there is no objective or statutory basis in the scheme for the 9 and 18 metre setbacks required by Council. These setbacks are not based on any standards of clause 55. They are not derived from local policy, a schedule to the zone, a design and development overlay or an adopted urban design framework or local policy. Furthermore I note that the rear of other nearby 3 and 4 storey apartment buildings have not been required to have setbacks similar to the ones proposed in this review. I consider the setbacks are arbitrary, subjective and excessive requirements.

 

August 19, 2015

A Quiz On The Zones!

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

Glen Eira has designated Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie as Urban Villages where the majority of new development is supposed to go. All the rest are either Neighbourhood Centres or Local Centres. There are ten Neighbourhood Centres and 23 listed ‘local centres’ in the Planning Scheme. The Phoenix Precinct has its own category as a Priority Development Zone.

According to the Planning Scheme, residential development in Neighbourhood Centres, is meant to adhere to the following:

Apartments and shop top housing is encouraged within the commercial areas of these centres. Single dwellings and multi unit development are encouraged immediately adjoining the commercial areas of these centres.

AND

Encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases.

Thus, according to this prescription, multi-unit development is only to go into those areas “IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE COMMERCIAL AREAS”. Then why oh why has so much of these neighbourhood centres been zoned as GRZ1 – ie three storeys?

It is obvious that the zones do not match what is stated in the Planning Scheme, with the result that huge swathes of McKinnon, East Bentleigh, Murrumbeena, Ormond, Caulfield South and others, have been all given the green light for 3 storey multi-unit development.

Local centres are even worse off since these are pockets of land zoned commercial that more often than not, directly abut neighbourhood residential zones. The Planning Scheme states:

Recognise the minor role that local centres will play in providing for housing diversity by encouraging development limited to low density shop top housing

AND

Ensure that residential development (except in Patterson and Gardenvale local centres) does not exceed two storeys in height

Since there is no height restriction on land zoned commercial, this is indeed pie in the sky – as recently proved with a three storey development at 251 Koornang Road (zoned commercial 1). Why such errant nonsense still remains in the planning scheme is beyond us. Nor has Council even attempted to introduce any restrictions on its small shopping strips as Boroondara has had success with. Nor have they introduced any Design & Development Overlays as this comprehensive document from Bayside demonstrates (uploaded here). Council has done nothing except slap Commercial zoning on a handful of businesses without due regard to the fact that many of these ‘local centres’ are surrounded by residential, low rise single dwellings – all zoned Neighbourhood Residential zone.

Once again it is inept planning and a bonus to developers.

So here is a quiz on the zones that readers might like to have a go in responding to. We would bet that councillors and even officers wouldn’t know the answers to most of these queries!

  • Which suburb has the largest Commercially zoned area?
  • Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned GRZ1?
  • Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned GRZ2?
  • Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned RGZ1?
  • Does Glen Eira really have 78% zoned NRZ1?
  • What percentage of residential land area in Carnegie is geared towards medium and high density development because of its zoning? How does this correlate with the nonsense of 80/20 – ie minimal change versus housing diversity?
  • How many streets in Glen Eira have multiple zonings (which was advised against by the C25 Panel Report)? – ie RGZ, GRZ, NRZ, MUZ, C1Z?
  • How much ‘infill’ has occurred in Neighbourhood Residential Zones – ie two double storeys per block?
  • How many sites in Glen Eira are over 1000 square metres, larger than their neighbours, and according to the planning scheme, capable of accommodating more than two dwellings – regardless of them being in Neighbourhood Residential Zones?
  • How many amendments has Council pushed through to rezone land to Mixed Use since the introduction of the zones? How does this compare with other councils? Please remember that Mixed Use has no height limits, no open space requirements, etc.
  • How many VCAT decisions that overturn council are largely due to the ‘policies’ contained in the Planning Scheme?

These are the questions we believe that residents need answers to since they go to the heart of sound strategic planning. If this council is so confident that its planning is ‘perfect’, then they need to be able to justify their planning decisions. Thus far, all residents have received are shonky figures, complete failure to fulfill the ‘promises’ of a decade ago, plus execrable statements that consulting with residents would result in worse outcomes. For any council to hold such a view is utterly abhorrent.

 

August 18, 2015

Progress?

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

Untitled

And more of the same?

Untitled (2)lt

 

 

August 16, 2015

Public Safety Versus Profit

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

We’ve received the following email and series of photographs highlighting (once again) the chaos that residents have to put up with. Why this goes on and on and developers allowed to own our streets is incomprehensible. Even if fined, we’re told that either the fine is ignored, or it’s so miniscule that it is a drop in the ocean for most contractors working on multi-million dollar projects. It is our understanding however, that councils have the legal right to set their own penalties. A $200, or even $300 dollar fine is negligible. It is time that this council got off its backside and starting properly policing, fining and prosecuting each and every single developer that does not give a damn about those living next to his mess.

In order, here is:

  • The email we received
  • The photos depicting day after day

What we do not have photos of is the claim that on Friday last, there were 16 trucks parked in the Carnegie Street – three with trailers attached. The street in its entirety is approximately 200 metres long. Residents were unable to get out of their drives.

Development has a major impact on us everyday and council just doesn’t care and doesn’t have the interest in doing anything about it!! Our neighbourhood has been impacted, like so many others, by a local single block development in Carnegie. The developers and construction company have had no regard for publicly owned property, no regard for public access, no regard for neighbours and have had a number safety breaches on site that I understand have resulted in fines and orders to rectify the site. This week council has been contacted everyday to complain about the impassable footpath that has been created by the construction company. The attached photographs show the problem. The daily calls have resulted in 3 notices being issued to the construction company (Wednesday) – but the result was no change at all – the footpaths remain impassable. Calls were made again on Thursday and Friday – again no change to the footpaths at all. This morning the solution seems to have been found! ‘Use other footpath’ signs erected. So the developers get away with completely ruining public infrastructure and are not made to immediately rectify the damage – no strong action from council, nothing that does anything to protect the health and safety of residents, nothing that makes a strong statement to developers about not damaging public property. This council is shameless and completely ineffective.

138.

148

115solution

 

August 14, 2015

All In The Family?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, Miscellaneous
[14] Comments 

From Elizabeth Miller’s Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethMillerBentleigh

miller

gillon

Source: http://karl-gillon.me/

PS: The latest spruiking!

em

 

August 13, 2015

Our ‘Perfect’, Little ‘Cosy Club’

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

Item 9.COMMUNITY GRANTS

Magee moved to accept ‘as printed’. Hyams seconded.

MAGEE: said this was the ‘most gratifying part’ of being part of a council in handing out money to community groups who ‘provide services to our community’. Went through the report on numbers of applications and how many from non profit groups. Said that the committee included himself, Esakoff and Sounness. Community groups are largely volunteers and they work to ‘give a community benefit’. Some groups missed out because they didn’t fit in with the guidelines which council publishes and these are ‘extensive’.

HYAMS: called this a ‘good process’ and it helps the community and ‘everyone benefits’. There are still other applications to consider.

OKOTEL: is ‘happy and pleased’ that there is this program because it’s ‘important for our community’ in supporting groups. What she was unhappy about was the ‘final submissions’ on which clubs received the grants. Said that the process involves ‘assessment against community grants guidelines’ and this ‘is done in a very thorough way’ by the grants committee. This takes a day to go through them all and ‘I would certainly endorse the recommendations of the committee’. But she sees ‘a stretching of those guidelines to accommodate’ other applications and that ‘this goes one step too far’. Further, ‘if council were to act properly’ then they should amend the guidelines ‘to be more accommodating rather than stretching’ in her opinion, the guidelines to give grants to those groups that ‘weren’t recommended’ by the committee. She supports the recommendations of the committee but ‘what we see before us is a step too far’ beyond the guidelines.

PILLING: said that the ‘process’ had improved over the years and that the quality of applications had also improved. Said that ‘overwhelmingly’ the majority of the committee’s recommendations were ‘adopted’. Admitted that a ‘few’ had changed amounts but ‘that was a very small number’ and he was ‘confident that the process’ is good and that all applicants are aware of the guidelines. Purpose of the guidelines is to give residents the ‘confidence that we’re spending their money wisely’.

DELAHUNTY: thanked the committee for their work and appreciated that it was ‘very very difficult’ for decisions when there are so many ‘good causes’. Thought that ‘the process is robust’ and councillors have a big responsibility and also to ‘ensure’ that they follow the guidelines. Said she was ‘undecided’ on some and that they had to ‘get more information on’ like the one on making a ‘short video’ and the Jewish GLBT (IE gay, lesbian,bisexual, transgender) and ‘this will be a great project, one we haven’t seen before’. Sporting clubs ‘hang out for our decisions’.

LOBO: ‘any grant is always welcome’. Said that grants are ‘motivation’ for clubs and this is also apparent in the ‘community service awards’. One thing that ‘intrigued’ him was the clubs who said they were ‘running multi-cultural’ events and ‘I would like to have seen what kind of multi-cultural activities they perform’ plus whether ‘multi-cultural people can also join that club’.

MAGEE: endorsed all recommendations and everything is assessed against guidelines. Committee is important because they can delve and question and decide ‘what is the greatest community benefit’. and ‘sometimes the amounts can change slightly to what the officers recommend’. Thanked Jones and the officers for ‘putting this together’ and ‘it is an awesome amount of work’ that they put in and then bring it ‘to the assembly’. Also, there is often the need for ‘clarification’ from the applicants and this sometimes ‘comes from the committee and sometimes from Mr Jones’. Magee endorses ‘all of the’ grants and even when there is the wish to give a grant he can’t ‘because there is only so much money to give out’. Those groups that ‘miss out’ did so because their application wasn’t ‘worded properly’ or ‘explained’ things properly. Said there are some new things in the grants – Jewish Comedy Festival and he’s ‘looking forward to this’ and hopes it really ‘gets off the ground’.

MOTIONS PUT AND CARRIED. OKOTEL VOTED AGAINST

++++++++

Item 9.12 – Strategic Resource Plan

Hyams moved to accept as printed. Pilling seconded.

HYAMS: said that this was simply to ‘adjust some of the figures’ but that they are still ‘good figures’. Main one was ‘liquidity’ and ‘at first glance is not the greatest’ but the ‘reason we adjusted’ is that once you look at the ‘seasonally adjusted for aged care’ it is ‘very sustainable’. Stated that the adjustment was because ‘without that’ there would be the assumption that the aged care bonds would have to be ‘repaid all at once – and that’s never going to happen’. So now the ‘assumption is that only a small percentage’ will be paid out at a time. Claimed that the adjustments therefore equal ‘the real world’ and the previous figures were more ‘accounting fiction’. Council had to change because the Local Government requirements has changed and council had already sent their plan off to the minister. So there was the need ‘to change and bring into line with those assumptions’. Admitted that ‘there were also some mistakes that were made’ but these ‘have been corrected now’.

DELAHUNTY: said that the officer’s report mentioned two reasons for the adjustments – ‘formulaic inconsistencies’ and ‘definitions’. Said these errors should have ‘been picked up’ and that the ‘biggest one’ is the ‘last line’. Said that council ‘always’ knew about the ‘new definitions’ for the aged care bonds. This was ‘adjusted in our minds’ only. Said that she’s got ‘issues’ with the performance indicators as a system and acknowledged the time of council officers to ‘work out the definitions’. The report is ‘obviously sound’ but ‘subject’ to the need to be a ‘bit more careful’.

OKOTEL: said that they’ve ‘identified areas’ where the indicators ‘could be improved’ so that ‘what we’re reporting against is meaningful’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

August 11, 2015

MRC – ‘Born To Rule’ – #2

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[12] Comments 

ITEM 9.7 – MRC

(ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ & SOUNNESS WERE APOLOGIES FOR THIS MEETING)

Delhunty moved an alternate motion that included: that the MRC has entered into a lease with the Alliance group involved with the level crossing removal project where “commuters’ will be allowed to ‘park for free’. This is a ‘sub lease arrangement’ and is ‘valued at approximately $90,000 -$100,000’ for 2 months. Motion also said that council write to the Trust to ensure that ‘they are aware’ of the arrangement. Also copies go to Minister for Environment & Climate Change, Lisa Neville, Auditor-General and members of parliament. Seconded by Magee.

DELAHUNTY: said that the report was first off about access arrangements for the public and what has been happening. Not a lot has been happening but there are ‘other current arrangments’ including a ‘commercial’ deal that has ‘been struck between the Alliance’ and the MRC ‘that values the Guineas car park, conservatively’ for $90,000 for 60 days. That’s just over $1,400 per day. In the ‘stalled’ lease negotiations between the Trust and the MRC ‘their offer and their apparent independent valuation’ is ‘offering the community 30 cents a day’. From this disparity, we ‘can see how absolutely outrageous’ the MRC’s offer on the lease is. ‘It shows what contempt they hold the community in’. ‘We won’t put up with it’ when the MRC itself values the land far more highly. Thus in the private arrangement the MRC ‘are making now what would cover’ their current lease. Even the 95,000 for the lease is a ‘poor outcome’ for the community when there is a valuation which says they should be paying closer to a million dollars for the lease of the land. Said that the starting point for any negotiations should be ‘what they have valued’ the car park land as. She is ‘hopeful’ that in passing this information on to ‘ those negotiating’ the lease that there will be ‘a better outcome for the community’.

MAGEE: started off by saying that the MRC ‘doesn’t seem able to put their hands on the agreement’ of 2011 and he suggests that ‘they look in the same filing cabinet’ where they can’t find the documents for the leases for the ‘northern stables’ and Aquinita Lodge. Ratepayers and taxpayers of Victoria are ‘paying in excess of a billion dollars’ for the grade separation but the MRC is ‘making a profit out of it’. They think that ‘you need us’ so we are ‘happy to sub-let Crown Land which you own’ and make you pay for the land that you own’. When the price they are paying for t’that small car park’ is ‘extrapolated’ across the 50 hectares of land then the ‘one million dollars is insignificant’ because it becomes more like ’40 or 50 million dollars’. Said that the MRC ‘are not what they portray’ themselves to be – they aren’t community minded nor a ‘friend of Glen Eira’. They have the ‘absolute need to profiteer’ and to ‘charge’ the taxpayers of Victoria to ‘park on their land’. ‘This is not only appalling. This is sickening’. Said that the ‘minister should be aware of this. The minister should be commenting on this’. If the MRC are ‘allowed to sublet’ the Guineas car park, then they can ‘sublet any part’ of the racecourse. Question is ‘what are they allowed to do’. Said there is ‘no lease in place’ and that it is an ‘ongoing, day by day’ process. Plus ‘anyone who sits back and accepts this’ is equally in contempt with the MRC.

OKOTEL: endorsed the motion and ‘queried how genuine’ the MRC are about ‘talking with council’. From the ‘invitation’ in the letter printed in the agenda, council has ‘sought’ a meeting with the MRC but it is ‘disappointing that they don’t seem to be able to make the time’. Said that there is no time set aside ‘as yet’. Thus, whilst the tone of the letter suggests they are ‘willing to have an open discussion’ that’s not happening but it’s important for council to ‘continue to advocate strongly’. ‘Despite’ the letters they get ‘very little progress is being made’.

HYAMS: asked for an amendment that when ‘further information’ is received that a report be tabled. This amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and seconder.

DELAHUNTY: what needs to be finalised is the lease but negotiations ‘have broken down’ because there is ‘an incredible discrepancy between valuations’. The MRC has for the last 20 years paid about $90,000pa. They think it’s valued at $100 per year and the ‘council obviously thinks much higher’. The lease to the alliance shows that the MRC doesn’t value the land at $100 per year but much more and they are ‘trying to take the trust and the community for fools and we won’t stand for it here’. Their subletting will ‘help move the lease’ negotiations forward because it shows their own valuation of the land.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

August 11, 2015

MRC – ‘Born To Rule’

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

The Melbourne Racing Club is at it again – acting as if it is their god given right to do whatever they want on public land, whenever they want, and without any concern for nearby residents. This time they want a ‘timing system’ which involves the erection of 31 radio towers (height 13 metres) scattered across the racecourse and costing, they claim, $570,000. Naturally, the Department (as land manager) has given its approval (see uploaded letter here).

Throughout the application there is not a single word about environmental impacts nor potential safety concerns for residents – nor for that matter horses! Instead there is repetition upon repetition claiming ‘non-significant impact on the visual amenity of the area’. One paragraph in particular caught our attention –

3 antennas are proposed within the centre of the reserve and will be located directly adjacent to the track and existing infrastructure. The location of these antennas will ensure that the visual impact is minimal and the use of the public open space area remains unaffected.

Yes, 13 metre high poles of steel are certainly compatible with visual amenity and ball sports that council is advocating. Another nail in the coffin for more public open space if this goes ahead!

Here is what the poles will look like and where it is proposed they will go!

PS: please note that the heights will exceed 13 metres, since this calculation does not take into account the footings upon which the poles will rest.

Pages from 31_Station_Street_Caulfield_East_Vic_3145_-_Advertised_Documents

31_Station_Street_Caulfield_East_Vic_3145_-_Advertised_Plans_Page_1

 

August 10, 2015

Hansard – Alias ‘Kindergarten Playtime’

Posted by gleneira under GE Transport, Miscellaneous
[7] Comments 

McKinnon Road, McKinnon, level crossing

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan)—My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, who is responsible for the removal of level crossings. A constituent of mine in the Assembly electorate of Bentleigh has a business close to the McKinnon Road level crossing in McKinnon, which is one of the level crossings highlighted for removal by the government. My constituent is a landlord and one of her tenants spoke to her about being approached by government authorities about the public acquisition of the land on which their business stands. As members will imagine, this has caused great concern to both the landlord and the tenant because it was the first time they had heard that that land was going to be targeted. My constituent attended the public meeting held last week in Bentleigh, and the public acquisition of land was also news to some people at that meeting.

The uncertainty has caused great concern amongst a number of businesses around the level crossing that is slated for removal. What has made it even more confusing is that the information given suggests that people should approach the local council for advice and guidance, yet the local council also seems confused. It does not seem to have anyone who knows much about it and so far it has not appointed anyone to undertake that work. As members will appreciate, there is much consternation amongst the community. The action I seek from the minister is that he provide clarification as to where people should go to seek advice or guidance about the future impacts land acquisition may have on business owners and operators, landlords and tenants.

There needs to be a clear direction about the intention of the public land acquisition, and clearly my constituents in Bentleigh need to have their fears and concerns allayed.

Mr PULFORD …..Ms Crozier raised a matter for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, but I suggest that perhaps the Minister for Public Transport is the lead minister on the level crossings project.

Ms Crozier—I was not sure if it was Minister Donnellan or Minister Allan.

Ms PULFORD—The removal of the level crossings and a project of this scale does have intersections with road issues, and Ms Crozier’s issue was particularly around land acquisition, which would naturally sit with another minister. I suggest that if Ms Crozier is happy, I will refer that to the Minister for Public Transport as the lead minister on the level crossings removal project. I will seek a response for her.

+++++++++++

SOUTHWICK & STAIKOS

Level crossings

Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh)—The Andrews Labor government is getting on with the job of removing level crossings in the Bentleigh electorate. In just eight months we have established the Level Crossing Removal Authority, allocated the funds in the budget, signed the contracts and completed early works. Full construction begins later this year.

Consultation is key to the successful delivery of these projects, and I was pleased that last week 500 local residents packed the McKinnon Secondary College hall to hear from the Level Crossing Removal Authority and give their feedback. After four long, dark, wasted years, the Andrews government is removing level crossings at Centre Road, McKinnon Road and North Road. Local residents are delighted by this and very much appreciated the opportunity to participate in the consultation last week. The only people unhappy about this consultation are those opposite. Several members of the opposition got a bit hot under the collar about this meeting and are highly critical of community consultation. The member for Caulfield, who is in the chamber, has been one of the most vocal opponents of consultation on level crossing removal works. I am not surprised by this, given the strange place the member finds himself in.

The member for Caulfield recently held a meeting in protest against the Matthew Guy residential zones. The flyer for the meeting opened with, ‘Do you have concerns about local overdevelopment, such as Port Phillip or questions about planning laws?’. It might as well have read: ‘Come and tell us how bad we were in government’. We know how bad they were—that’s why they are on that side of the house.

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—I call on the Premier to discipline the member for Bentleigh over his disgraceful behaviour in advertising a level crossing removal information session using government funds to promote himself and his cause. I particularly question where the email addresses of constituents in Bentleigh will end up. Will they receive Labor Party information?

These level crossing removal information sessions are meant to be run by the Level Crossing Removal Authority, which is supposedly independent, to gain information. This is a disgrace to the Labor Party, and it is absolutely disgraceful behaviour by the member for Bentleigh. He has utilised this opportunity for his own political gain.

What will happen with the information that was collected? I think all constituents of Bentleigh would be very concerned. They provided their information with the singular intention of ensuring the wellbeing of their area. They want to receive the right information. This is an absolute disgrace to the member for Bentleigh. It is overreaching at very best. One would have to question what this information is going to be used for, and I ask the Premier to investigate this absolutely absurd and ridiculous action of the member for Bentleigh.

Caulfield electorate

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—(Question 394) My question is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. The North Road, Ormond, level crossing removal is a vital project for my electorate of Caulfield which was announced and fully funded by the former coalition government in 2014. Local residents are concerned about the future of the Dorothy Avenue rail underpass, which may be removed as part of the North Road level grade separation, as it enables commuters to travel east–west through their neighbourhood and to two nearby schools.

I note the sham consultation process run by the member for Bentleigh, which did not allow many to attend the Dorothy Avenue meeting to talk about their concerns. We have certainly had a lack of consultation and transparency, with the only consultation run by the member for Bentleigh, which was an absolute sham. I ask: could the minister provide advice on whether the Dorothy Avenue rail underpass will remain or be removed as part of the North Road, Ormond, level crossing removal?

 

August 9, 2015

A Fair Dinkum Stuff Up?

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

How on earth does a council stuff up so badly on financial reporting when:

This is all about Item 9.12 of the current agenda where we find the following unbelievable admission –

On assessing the financial indicators as part of the end-of-year accounts review, officers identified a number of formulaic inconsistencies and errors in the indicators listed in Council’s Strategic Resource Plan compared with the calculations in the LGPRF template.

To ensure consistency with the Local Government Performance Reporting calculations, officers have recalculated the financial indicators and have reproduced these (refer attached). They will be updated in Council’s Strategic Resource Plan.

So readers may judge for themselves the magnitude of these errors, we ask them to compare the ‘original’ SRP (passed and accepted without question by our wide awake councillors) and the current version. Simply click on each image to enlarge. We do apologise for the quality of the images – that of course is dependent on the formats that council chooses to publish its material. Otherwise readers should go directly to the minutes of these council meetings.

CIRCA MAY/JUNE 2015

Pages from June23-2015-SPECAIL-AgendaAUGUST VERSION

Pages from Agenda_11_August

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »