February 1, 2015

Agenda Items 2015 – #2

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

Item 9.2 – 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie – Heritage Protection

This item raises heaps of issues as to the value that council places on heritage. The property is Frogmore in Carnegie. The site has no heritage listing dating back to the 1996 Council assessment. The latest ‘review’ recommends Heritage listing via an overlay. The large site has been bought by Jewish Care and residents fear that demolition of the building would consequently ensue.

Officer reports are there to provide ‘guidance’ and ‘advice’ and ultimately we suggest, to proffer specific and clear recommendations. In this instance the recommendation is for ‘council to decide’. Perhaps, well and good, if the report is fair, unbiased, and comprehensive. We don’t believe that this is the case in this instance.

Basically, two ‘options’ are provided. But, it is in the wording of these options, that all semblance of objective, fair appraisal, is missing.

Recommendation ‘A’ reads –

One option would be to act on the recent reassessment and initiate a planning scheme amendment process to include the property in the heritage overlay.

Council would need to ask the Minister for Planning to place interim protection over the site. Given the previous assessment that heritage was not appropriate, no objections being raised for many years and that a new owner has acted in good faith on the basis of existing controls, there is no assurance that the Minister would grant such an interim control.

If interim controls were approved, the Council would need to exhibit an amendment to apply a heritage overlay. Submissions could be made for or against. The matter would go to an independent panel which could consider all submissions. Again, given the original process and that the owner has acted in good faith on Council’s decision not to place a heritage overlay, there is no assurance that the panel would support the amendment. Any amendment would need to be approved by the Minister. The process would take approximately 18 months.

COMMENT

  • ‘heritage was not appropriate’. Quite misleading we suggest since the ‘criteria’ applied by council was that Heritage listings be part of ‘an identified historic area’. Yet all the legislation and even Council’s own Planning Scheme ostensibly contradicts this application of policy. Section 21.10 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme makes it absolutely clear that single sites may also be worthy of heritage protection – A number of areas and individual properties comprehensively demonstrate important eras in the growth of Glen Eira and survive in a reasonably intact state.
  • The officer report even admits that Frogmore received a 1996 rating of “C” – just not the C+ that placed it in a ‘historic area’. Readers should remember that this is Carnegie after all, and given land development history, ‘expendable’!
  • Repetition of the ‘owner acting in good faith’ is arguably entirely irrelevant to the question of whether a building is worthy of heritage protection or not.
  • The presence or absence of ‘objections’ is also entirely irrelevant. With little publicity, and certainly little opportunity for residents to have direct input into council matters it is not surprising that Frogmore and its potential heritage status has been enveloped by silence. Further, several other comments made in the officer report could also act as a major deterrent to public involvement– ie the expense of obtaining private heritage advice by any interested resident.
  • The Minister’s approval would be required regardless of the two options provided in the report. According to The Heritage Act, – After considering the report of the Heritage Council, the Minister may make any determination in relation to a recommendation that the Heritage Council could have made under Division 3. Hence, ‘there is no assurance’ that even with Heritage Council approval the Minister would give it the nod!

Recommendation ‘B’ states –

Option B: Not re-open the heritage issue at a municipal level but abide by whatever decision is made by the Heritage Council.

The heritage process of 1996 – 2003 considered all properties in Glen Eira. It placed 3,893 properties under heritage controls. It was a very public process with many stages of consultation. It provided opportunities for views to be put for or against heritage classification of any property in the municipality. The views being expressed now might more appropriately have been expressed during the seven year process and been taken into account and determined then or in the eleven years since then.

It is reasonable for prospective purchasers to act on the basis of the Council’s planning scheme, especially given that the heritage status of every property in the municipality had been considered and had been decided. It would be unreasonable to change the rules after the purchaser had acted in good faith and committed significant funds.

COMMENT

  • Is this Seaview revisited? Council stuff ups again?

The suggested wording of the ultimate motions also require comment. Here is what an Option ‘B’ resolution would contain –
That Council:

(a) note the heritage process over the period 1996 to 2003 which provided the appropriate opportunity to put views for or against the heritage status of 1Wahgoo Road, Carnegie;

(b) note that the current owner of the property has acted in good faith and committedsignificant funds on the basis of Council’s planning scheme; and

(c) forwards the attached consultant report to the Heritage Council and agrees toabide by the Heritage Council’s decision in this matter.

In our view parts (a) and (b) of this motion are inappropriate and entirely irrelevant. If anything, they undermine to a great extent the ‘neutrality’ of any potential Heritage Council decision and thus potentially sway the argument in favour of rejection. We also wonder whether the 1996 policy was simply an early version of Amendment C87, where sites for Significant Character Overlays were all selected by officers with no allowable input by councillors or residents!

There are many other comments scattered throughout this report that need to be questioned. The most glaring concerns the fact that Frogmore is not ‘visible’ from Wahgoo Road. This is an argument for not having a Heritage listing. Funnily enough many of the the most prized Heritage properties in Glen Eira are also not ‘visible’ from the main road – Ripponlea being the perfect example.

 

January 30, 2015

Agenda Items 2015

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

There are several important items up for decision next Tuesday. Here is the first one –

Item 9.1 – Public Acquisition Overlay on 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale

Purchasing land to expand public open space is commendable. In this instance we can only shake our heads in bewilderment at the continual inconsistency and contradictions that are the hallmarks of planning in Glen Eira. Please note:

  • 53 Magnolia Road had a public acquisition overlay. It was removed in January 2008 (process for amendment started in 2007)
  • At the time the following statement was made in support of removing the overlay – Gardenvale Park is a small neighbourhood park. The addition of this small house block (497m2) will not greatly increase the park’s size. Gardenvale Park, as it has been developed, serves the needs of the local community and does not need to be extended in area. (Minutes of 27th November 2007)
  • The decision to proceed was made in camera on the 1st May 2007. The formal resolution read – Crs Robilliard/Lipshutz – That Council – a) Seek authorization from the Minister for Planning to prepare a planning scheme amendment to remove the Public Acquisition Overlay from 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale.
  • Now in 2015 we get the story of how deficient in public open space Glen Eira is, and how this amendment fulfills the Open Space Strategy. Forget the fact that Council and residents knew in 1987 and again with the 1998 Open Space Strategy that Gardenvale was lacking in open space. The 1998 Strategy went even further in specifically recommending that Council maintain the overlay on this property.

There were two submissions at the time of the proposed removal. One of the submitters included the following comments –

Procrastination by the Council over more than 10 years has seen the building deteriorate to the extent that the only likely course of action for the current owners or any near future owners would be to demolish the building. It is barely habitable. Whereas, if a decision had been made by Council earlier, the building may have been saved and the streetscape and entrance to the Park left relatively unaffected. The Council has also missed the opportunity to acquire the property at a reasonable cost and thus expand the park.

Now, 8 years later, Council decides that it does need to reimpose the public acquisition overlay. Of course, Council will now have to pay 2015 prices and not 2008 prices. Further, why couldn’t this proposal have been included as part of Amendment C120 (open space levy) as other councils have done given the very short time frame between the two?

House prices in the area are well over $1,000,000. What were they in 1987 and again in 2007?

 

January 28, 2015

MRC & ‘Cinema’

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

The right decision has ultimately been made. But this still begs the question of:

  • why was this application allocated to a Delegated Planning Committee (ie only officers) to begin with? Surely given past history and community objections, it should have gone immediately to a planning conference and formal Council decision?
  • Will Lipshutz, Esakoff & Hyams declare a conflict of interest?
  • Will the Officer report neatly sidestep the alcohol and parking issues?

We wait with bated breath!

cinema

 

January 26, 2015

Does Heritage Mean Anything In Glen Eira?

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

Council’s heritage overlay policy dates back to 1996. Despite Panel Reports recommending ‘reviews’ of these overlays, nothing approaching a comprehensive and up-to-date review has been embarked upon. Council in its wisdom also decided that many properties found in such overlays could also be zoned as ripe for development under the Residential Growth Zone.

Here is an example of the latest application:

Address: 441-461 Glen Huntly Road, 9 Beavis Street, Elsternwick

Proposal: Demolish the existing building on the land (Heritage Overlay) construct and carry out works associated with the construction of a ten storey building and two buildings of four storeys plus basement, use of the land for the purpose of Accomadation (sic) and shop (Supermarket), a reduction in the visitor car parking requirements of Clause 52.6 and the removal of easement pursuant to Clause 52.02
 

January 22, 2015

Bayside & The Zones

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

Readers may remember that prior to the recent state election, Bayside was on the verge of having its RGZ areas removed from the municipality. With a change in government, and a new planning minister, Bayside is again moving towards improving amenity for their residents. All of this goes to show that amendments, changes, and preserving local amenity is possible for councils. Of course, there has to be the will to do so and to pursue these issues.

In the published agenda for their first council meeting of the year, Bayside is seeking a formal resolution to:

  • Organise a meeting with the new planning minister
  • Proceed with those aspects of Amendment C106 which were refused by Guy

Bayside is seeking, via this amendment to:

  • Remove all areas zoned RGZ
  • Have a minimum lot size of 400 square metres in its Residential zone
  • Increase permeability to 35%
  • Maximum of 10 metres height in GRZ6
  • Increase private open space requirement according to number of bedrooms

For a full coverage of this amendment, see Agenda Item 10.3. Available at – http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/documents/Ordinary_Meeting_Agenda_27_January_2015_without_Confidential.pdf

All of the above makes us wonder what on earth our band of councillors are doing 18 months down the track and when the full disaster is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day.

In comparison to Bayside, we remind readers once again, of what Glen Eira underachieved and continues to underachieve when mirrored against the real gains of countless other municipalities – all of which we’ve highlighted over the past year.

  • NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE (meaning that 487 Neerim Road can have subdivisions of 199 square metres)
  • 3 GRZ SCHEDULES (in reality only 2 applying widely)
  • GRZ zones where ‘one size fits all’ of 10.5 metre height
  • Permeability of 20% in housing diversity, and 25% in minimal change
  • Open space again, ‘one size fits all’, regardless of numbers of rooms, size, etc.
  • Residential Growth Zones in narrow, local streets (Bent, Mavho, Loranne,Belsize, etc. etc.)
 

January 21, 2015

Rate Hikes

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

Council rates capped from mid-2016

Date: January 21, 2015 – 2:23AM
Luke Battersby
Council rates will be capped next year with the state government forcing councils to justify any increases above the rate of inflation.

The new Minister for Local Government, Natalie Hutchins, wrote to mayors and chief executives last week advising the cap would be introduced before the start of the 2016-17 financial year.

“[T]his should not be seen as an opportunity to raise rates above inflation prior to the implementation of the rates cap … Unnecessary rate rises in 2015-16 may affect your eligibility for future rate cap exemptions,” she warned.  “However, the public’s support for our election commitment is a clear message that they expect councils to provide […] services while keeping rates at an affordable level.”

Councils must now send their budgets to the Essential Services Commission for permission to raise rates above inflation under Labor’s new policy.

Inflation – as measured through the consumer price index [CPI] – was currently running at 2.3 per cent. Last financial year rates increased by an average of 4.23 per cent, to an average assessment of $1725.

However, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, Bill McArthur, disagreed with the government’s decision to peg rates to the CPI, saying the costs of running a household were irrelevant to council’s costs.  He also noted the federal government had cut funding to Victorian councils by $124 million over three years.

“CPI is a measure of a common household basket of goods, they do not take into account construction costs … It does not measure the cost of community services or construction,” Mr McArthur said.

The MAV’s taskforce has met with the new government and wants to commission a “top tier consultancy” to create a cost index to “reinforce that CPI has no bearing on the changes to councils’ underlying costs”, Mr McArthur said.  However, the MAV would work with the government “to achieve a sustainable outcome”.

The current rate cap in NSW and a previous cap in Victoria had “devastating long term consequences, including a reduction in capital spending on necessary maintenance and assets”, such as roads, parks, sport facilities, footpaths and community centres, Mr McArthur said.

The Kennett government capped rates in 1995 after reducing the number of councils from 210 to 78 and forcing rates down by 20 per cent. It then imposed a cap of one percentage point below inflation, which was running at 1.5 per cent in 1996. The cap was lifted in 1997 to allow increases of up to 3 per cent – with Ministerial approval –  to help councils raise money to fund pension obligations. In 1999 the Bracks government scrapped the cap altogether.

Chief executive of the Victorian Local Governance Association, Andrew Hollows, said state government interference in local government raised questions about democratic independence.

“We are not saying there should not be some moderation on rates, that is fair enough. [But] don’t just look at rates, look at the whole picture,” he said.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/council-rates-capped-from-mid2016-20150120-12tz7k.html

 

January 19, 2015

26 Storeys For Monash Caulfield Campus?

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

monashmonash2

 

January 17, 2015

Promises, Promises?

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

State Government vows to make Places Victoria more efficient, monitor parking spaces

  • Kylie Adoranti
  • Leader
  • January 15, 2015 12:00AM

THE State Government has vowed to make government developer Places Victoria more efficient and promised to monitor councils’ decisions on parking spaces in new apartment complexes.

These are among a list of thorny planning matters Acting Planning Minister Tim Pallas has assured the government will address.

Mr Pallas said under the new Labor Government, Places Victoria would have “a greater purpose and focus”.

He described Places Victoria as being “a shambles” under the former Liberal Government.

“There was a revolving door of management and we look forward to a period of better management,” he said.

Mr Pallas said his government would oversee councils’ use of carparking waivers “to protect livability and to make sure cars aren’t causing congestion and parking in suburban streets”.

“Local councils decide the carparking ratios for apartments in their areas. State governments have a responsibility to protect Melbourne’s livability. Development is important — but it needs to strengthen our communities, not weaken them,” he said.

“There was a revolving door of management and we look forward to a period of better management,” — Acting Planning Minister Tim Pallas

When asked about whether the scrapped Linking Melbourne Authority would be replaced, Mr Pallas said the government was in the process of establishing Infrastructure Victoria — an independent organisation to oversee capital projects.

He said there were no plans to review the urban growth boundaries and the green wedge would be protected.

The government has also promised to conduct a review into the residential planning zones.

Mr Pallas told the Leader the government would recast Fishermans Bend as a series of neighbourhoods.

“Part of this involves ensuring there is a mixture of heights and densities — from medium to high. Fishermans Bend is not a short-term project. It is a place that will evolve over many years into a precinct where people will want to live, to work and to raise a family.”

Mr Pallas was acting planning minister at the time of publication, replacing Acting Planning Minister Robin Scott who has been on leave and who was replacing Planning Minister Richard Wynne who was recovering from a minor heart attack.

Opposition Planning Spokesman David Davis said Mr Pallas criticising Places Victoria was “the pot calling the kettle black”.

“Places Victoria was a step by the previous government to clean up the rabble and mess left by Labor by the Vic Urban authority.

“Presumably Tim Pallas will retain the butler that was introduced in Labor’s period,” he said.

Mr Davis said the government had to release more details on its plan for Fishermans Bend.

“I have no idea what the erratic Andrews Government will do (to Fishermans Bend). The CFMEU-inspired planning spokesman prior to the election had no idea where it was heading.”

 

January 15, 2015

More From The MRC!

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

MRC lodges plan for outdoor cinema at Caulfield Racecourse

  • Andrea Kellett
  • January 15, 2015 12:00AM

The Melbourne Racing Club has asked Glen Eira Council for permission to run the summer cinema at Caulfield Racecourse.

It would be located between the racecourse administration building and the racetrack and cater for up to 500 people a session.

Consultants have lodged a planning permit application and details include:

— A mobile 7m high by 11m movie screen on the back of a flat deck truck which would be parked in position each screening night;

— Guests to view movies from the lawns between dusk and 1am;

— Parking to be provided in the Guineas carpark;

— Food and beverages to be available to buy and users to bring or buy picnic meals.

The consultants’ report describes the outdoor cinema as a “unique entertainment experience”.

Melbourne has a number of outdoor cinemas, among them the Moonlight cinema at the Royal Botanic Gardens, December — March; and Ben & Jerry’s open air Cinemas at St Kilda’s South Beach Reserve, November-December.

The MRC wants a permit to run its outdoor cinema between November and March, with an option to use the land for an outdoor cinema throughout the year.

MRC spokesman Jake Norton said ticket prices had not yet been decided.

“No. The concept, if the application is successful, would not be rolled out until next summer. Given that timing, as well as the fact that the application has yet to be approved, practical plans around ticketing, event logistics, dates and times, the product itself, content, associated food and beverage offering etc are still some way off,’’ Mr Norton said.

Glen Eira Council granted the MRC a permit for a permanent $3 million super screen at Caulfield Racecourse last year.

That screen displays race day activities including live video feeds, race replays, race day information and sponsor information.

++++++

 COMMENT

The following sentences are taken directly from the formal application. We urge readers to carefully note the hyperbole, the spin, and what this could mean for residents. Most importantly, we have to again question what has happened to the so called ‘agreement’ between Council and the MRC and the role of the Minister and the Department in this entire episode. The standout issues as far as we can see are –

  1. Public Transport does not operate till and after 1am weekdays
  2. Does extending the area for a liquor license fly in the face of the alcohol ban and how would the local constabulary view this attempt?
  3. Is Crown Land again being used for private commercial gain – especially when the MRC claims to be a ‘non-profit’ organisation?
  4. Have the Trustees signed off on this latest effort? Did they give permission for the application to the Department?
  5. Will the centre potentially be used for car parking?
  6. And will council once again cave in – either on the night, or at VCAT?

Here are the quotes:

Access to and parking at the racecourse is available with minimal impact to the community

The proposed outdoor cinema makes use of an entertainment facility that would otherwise lie idle during the proposed hours of operation.

Melbourne Racing Club is the custodian of a range of land holdings associated with and including the Caulfield Racecourse. The land holdings are a combination of freehold and Crown Land. The site which is the subject of this application is known as 31 Station Street and is contained within Crown Land referred to as Allotment A as Caulfield, Parish of Prahran.

The (Glen Eira) MESS notes at clause 21.01-2 that Caulfield Racecourse and Monash University are facilities of metropolitan significance and both are of major importance to the local economy. Further, Clause 21.02-1 Key influences – Advantages and Opportunities, recognises Caulfield Racecourse as a landmark and regional facility that contributes to the attraction and ‘liveability’ of the municipality.

Clause 21.06-2 identifies the objectives and strategies in relation to Business within the municipality, including:

  • To encourage more local employment and attract more local spending in partnership with business
  • Encourage new and innovative retail and commercial activities to establish in the municipality having regard to the hierarchy of centres as well as opportunities to developer appropriate freestanding sites for suitable retail or commercial use.

It is submitted that the proposal will achieve the following key imperatives of the SPPF by:

  • Encouraging a sue that meets the communiy’s needs for entertainment and providing a net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.

With the event proposed at the northern end of the subject site, patrons are within walking sitance of the Caulfield Railway Station interchange (with train, tram and bus services available). The Guineas car park which adjoins the proposed event location will also be available to patrons who choose to drive.

…..any overflow parking requirements can be provided by Melbourne Racing Club’s numerous other car parks.

DPI

 

January 12, 2015

Compare & Contrast – #4

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

In Glen Eira contracts awarded under tender are invariably decided behind closed doors via the in camera provisions of council meetings. Residents are not even always provided with information as to the outcome of these tenders. Not only does Glen Eira not provide any information on WHY and HOW the tenders are awarded, nor why company ‘A’ was successful as opposed to company ‘B’, but the performance criteria themselves are kept secret, the officers involved are secret, and the voting is secret.

We’ve reported previously on how other councils go about their tender decisions. Many publish full accounts of the companies involved; the scores they achieved against the criteria, and the individuals involved. Further, these are published in full in council agendas and minutes. Glen Eira maintains its cloak of secrecy.

This recent tender from Monash council caught our eye for several reasons. Readers should note the following:

  • The relative speed with which flooding issues have been addressed, and
  • How developer levies on drainage lessen the cost to ratepayers.

We have uploaded the full report HERE

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »