July 27, 2013

Where Are We Headed?

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

In what must be considered the most reactionary and one sided ‘discussion paper’ that this government has ever produced we now have the Councillor Conduct and Governance Reform effort. Public submissions are called for – yet we note that the submission period is less than 3 weeks; that the ‘call’ received practically no publicity; and that the authors of the report are most likely to be CEOs and other bureaucrats.

We have uploaded the full paper and the relevant link to the department’s site may be accessed at: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/news-and-events/news/conduct-and-governance-discussion-paper

A taste of what is ‘suggested’ follows:

Pages from Conduct_Discussion_Paper_PDF-2

 

July 26, 2013

Consultation Committee: Terms of Reference

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

Item 9.8 involved the terms of reference for the community consultation committee. We urge all readers to pay careful attention to the stated ‘function and role’. It reads:

“To make recommendations to Council in relation to the ways in which Council consults with residents,ratepayers and other stakeholders in the community to ensure maximum participation, communication and value to the community”.

In other words, the committee’s function is basically to partake ONLY in the mechanics of consultation, rather than providing direct input into any form of decision making as to the outcomes of these consultations. This important area of course, will be left first to the administrators and then councillors we presume. Thus only the first step in the ‘consultation’ continuum is being met and that is how to ‘engage’ with people – full stop. This committee is not granted any powers beyond that. It will presumably have no say in assessment, review, or participation in any decision making on the results of the ‘consultation’.

Nor do we believe it’s an ‘accident’ that the very important word REVIEW is now missing from these new terms of reference. The term was present in the original 2011 version. Also gone is the requirement that the committee meets at least 4 times a year. This has now been replaced with “as and when required”. Not that most committees do meet 4 times a year, but the omission we believe is significant in that it further erodes any formal structures and rules that should govern the running of such committees. Finally, as we’ve already noted, there is mention of ‘agreed criteria’ for the selection of community reps, but these are not provided, and definitely not made public. We can only speculate as to whether or not they even exist!

Following is the actual ‘debate’ on this item. Readers should carefully consider comments made by councillors and how the very notion of ‘consultation’ is watered down to practically nothing. Hyams’ hallmarks of ‘success’ such as the e-newletter and the notice boards are damning in themselves. Residents are lucky to receive 2 newsletters per year, and as a previous post pointed out, the notice boards were discussed, and discussed, and discussed for at least 2 years before little plastic boxes appeared in Glen Eira streets. Great achievements we say in open consultation, transparency and accountability!

Delahunty moved the motion and Lobo seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said that they had ‘long discussions’ about the number of community reps. She would like to ‘see more’ but happy with the current recommendation of 4. Went on to say that the ‘role and function is quite important’ in that recommendations about ‘the way we talk to residents’ is included and can then become the basis for ‘conversations’ with a ‘broad range of people’. Thought that ‘this is great’ and will help keep things ‘relevant’.

LOBO: couldn’t add much to Delahunty, and said this was ‘just streamlining’ of the terms of reference. Noted that the only thing that’s changed is ‘that the chair does not have the extra vote’. ‘So that will be a very interesting committee meeting’. Hoped that once the community reps were appointed they would be able to ‘steer this committee to heights that” the community would like in ‘the name of transparency’.

SOUNNESS: asked whether the terms of reference have ‘to follow certain forms’ and why this seemed to be different?

WAIT: answered that ‘they don’t’ have to follow any form and that each committee’s terms of reference can be different.

HYAMS: said that the committee began in ‘last term of council’ ‘at my suggestion’. Said that ‘most issues were decided by consensus’. Said that it’s important to ‘consult with the community’ but also that they ‘do so effectively’ and keep on improving. Claimed there were a ‘number of good initiatives’ from the committee  such as the ‘e-newsletter’ and ‘community notice-boards’ and hoped to see ‘future improvements’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

July 24, 2013

Community Consultation & The Veracity of ‘Minutes’

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

Below is the ‘debate’ on accepting the various committees’ ‘minutes’ and their recommendations. We’ve focused on the Community Consultation ones.

Delahunty moved to accept and seconded by Lobo.

DELAHUNTY: stated that the consultation committee ‘sets the standards‘ for consultation and seeks to ‘widen, broaden, deepen’ and make consultation ‘appropriate’ so it’s an ‘important committee’. Related what had been discussed: terms of reference; and EOI from  people wanting to be community reps as well as reviewing engagement strategy. Said that one submission from a resident was ‘very helpful’ (on disability). Vouched that this ‘was a true and accurate’ record of what happened at the meeting.

LOBO: said that 4 EOIs had been received by council. One was from a ‘very senior’ and ‘experienced resident’ and was in the ‘format’ that they were asked to submit. Went on to say that there were no ‘qualifications’ or ‘requisites’ given to people. Claimed that the committee decision was to ‘hold the applications on ice’ until advertising again. Said that in his view it’s the ‘right of ratepayers’ to both ‘represent the community’ and ‘contribute to a council that they finance and pay our salaries’. People who apply are community minded and spend ‘their own time’ in the effort to ‘make a difference’. Re-advertising creates the impressions that ‘we are not a transparent council’. Community reps for this committee is different to the environmental one where some professional expertise is required. Quoted Ghandi about ‘greatness’ and no correlation to  ‘education’ and that these applications should be ‘viewed’ in the same way. “Barriers’ to ‘perceived transparency’ have to be removed. Asked the rhetorical question as to precisely what they’re looking for – ‘a rocket scientist’, ‘psychiatrist’ or ‘a doctor of philosophy’. The Local Government Act compels councillors to act ‘impartially’ in carrying out their duties. Said that these would be ‘just words’ if not acted upon.

OKOTEL: spoke about the Violence against Women day and how council supports two groups in this area.

HYAMS: told the gallery that with this motion it’s not just about receiving and noting the minutes but also ‘adopting the recommendations’ so if councillors agree with Lobo that council shouldn’t be readvertising for community reps ‘they would vote against this motion’. Said that he didn’t think that readvertising was a ‘slight’ on those who applied and that they had hoped to ‘attract a slightly broader range of applicants’. Readvertising was ‘just a way of trying to achieve a broader range’ and doesn’t mean that those who already submitted won’t be selected. Went on to discuss the grants committee.

DELAHUNTY: endorsed Hyams comments on the Legal Service then went on to say that the minutes ‘tell the story’ of how council is ‘spending your money’ and they also tell the story about issues being discussed and ‘values and how we impart those values onto things we deem to be important’. People need to ‘keep track of these minutes’ and ensure that councillors are ‘held to account’ and ‘not discussing ourselves’ in these meetings and ‘not having a go at each other’. All that’s happening is ‘we’re discussing the issues and doing what local government’ should be doing. Finished by saying that some of the things she isn’t proud of but others she is and urged people to read the minutes.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (NOTE: Lipshutz and Magee were absent)

 

July 23, 2013

Are They Worth $300,000+ Per Annum?

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

Residents have every right to question why we are paying over $300,000 per annum for a bunch of councillors who continually fail to fulfil their legal and representative roles. Glen Eira councillors, as evidenced at tonight’s meeting are entirely superfluous to the running of council.

Tonight was an absolute talk fest. Phrases such as ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ were repeated ad nauseum – perhaps in the false belief that repeating such terms has some correlation to the lack of transparency and accountability that is the hallmark and most distinguishing feature of this council.

We will report in detail in the days ahead. However, the lowlights are:

  • Not one single word about delegations and how councillors are literally unnecessary appendages in the entire process when all control and power is delegated to officers. Not one word about councillor ‘call-in’ and not one word about how nebulous and vague the criteria which govern decision making for the Delegated Planning Committee is.
  • Public questions and the non-answers were again allowed to go through to the keeper with no councillor making any comment on any of the responses
  • No questioning of the community consultation terms of reference, except for Pilling’s aside that it appears to be different to other committees’ terms of reference. Lobo waxed lyrical regarding the selection of the community reps, implying that he was opposed to re-advertising, and then voted to accept.
  • An admission that the Open Space Review has not yet landed in the arms of councillors, but officers somehow manage to include some points from the review in the report on the ABC potential land sale.
 

July 21, 2013

What’s Safety Worth?

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

Most readers will have seen the Leader’s articles on council’s steadfast refusal to implement CCTV cameras in Bentleigh and how this has been contrasted to the actions of Kingston. (see: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/glen-eira-council-wont-take-cash-for-cameras-despite-residents-support/story-fni0fit3-1226680390247

AND

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/glen-eira-council-says-position-unchanged-on-bentleigh-cctv-cameras-for-two-years/story-fngnvmhm-1226681231971

Several things need to be pointed out:

  • As with the alcohol free zone in Bentleigh, this is another instance of repeated buck passing.
  • The looking of a gift horse in the mouth is unconscionable where public safety is concerned. This council repeatedly complains that it receives less in government grants than other councils. Yet, when $155,000 is handed to them on a platter, the money is refused.
  • The issue of CCTV cameras has now been dragging on for years.

There’s a wonderful irony that next Tuesday the Municipal Health & Well Being plan is up for ratification. Here are some quotes from this very policy which should be read in conjunction with this refusal to enact what countless other councils and government regard as ‘safety initiatives’

 “Community safety

During consultations it was identified that feeling safe to go out at night would lead to more opportunities for physical activity and social activities which were both key priority areas for health.”

We are fortunate that Glen Eira residents enjoy a health status above the state average. However risk factors for our community are expected to increase with population ageing. The provision of information, services and programs and the continued provision of a safe environment enables residents to make healthy lifestyle decisions ensuring a healthy future for Glen Eira.

Council will focus activity on improving social, physical and economic environments”.

Then there are the following 2 quotes:

“A safe environment where people can live work or play has a direct impact on the community’s physical, social and emotional wellbeing (Better Health Channel, 2013).

Promoting safety and safe practices within the community can contribute to increasing the confidence of residents about safety (Victoria Police, 2013).”

And how will Council ensure that these ‘vision statements’ are fulfilled? With their usual nonsense objectives and indicators!

Objective: “Promote and implement a range of community safety information and programs during community safety month.

Measures: “Three community safety initiatives held during Community Safety Month.”

Finally, there is another issue of governance. On the 14th August 2012, the following resolution was passed –

Cr Magee/Forge

a. That Council notes the report;

b. That Council writes to the Chief Commissioner of Police requesting the

Police review their decision not to monitor CCTV in Bentleigh

c. That a report come back to Council at the next Ordinary Council Meeting

after the response is received.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED. 

To the best of our knowledge no such report has surfaced. We also find it difficult to believe that there has not been anything coming back to council, especially since the Records of Assembly report that Hyams spoke with the Minister.

We can even go back to the 18th March 2008 when graffiti and the call for CCTV cameras in Elsternwick hit the news. The final sentence in this news report read: “Glen Eira spokesman Paul Burke said the council used CCTV cameras at problem hot spots, with the next area for focus to be the public toilets in Bentleigh.”

We do not know whether CCTV cameras are installed at the toilets. If they are, then clearly it is possible to do what is required in the interests of public safety. If they aren’t installed, then once again this council is full of promises, hot air, and no action!

 

July 19, 2013

Agenda: Delegations & Community Reps

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

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature several important items

DELEGATIONS

Once again councillors are largely sidelined when it comes to planning matters and the most important powers are ceded to officers. We reiterate what we’ve said in the past:

  • No councillor ‘call-in’ on applications – ie. countless other councils deem it essential that a councillor be given the right to insist that a planning application be decided by a full council rather than 3 bureaucrats as happens in Glen Eira under the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) structure
  • The criteria for determination remains vague and unquantified. For example: the Schedule to the DPC states that this committee may decide upon applications when “There has been significant objection/s in terms of substance or number received to an application, amendment or any other matter”. Precisely what ‘significant’ entails is of course not stated. Are we talking 5 objections, 10 objections, 50 objections? We note again that numerous other councils specify the number of objections that will automatically see the application go to a full council meeting.
  • There are other nebulous phrases contained in this schedule for the DPC: ‘significant departure from policy”. Again, what does significant mean in this context, and who is to decide? Certainly not councillors!
  • We refer readers to a previous post where the significance of such delegations is outlined in greater depth: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/delegations-the-glen-eira-way/
  • We also note that Newton’s spending power has now reached $750,000. This amount does not require a council resolution!

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

The farce of ‘consultation’ in Glen Eira continues with the minutes for this meeting. The positions for community reps will be readvertised since according to the spin – “The committee discussed the lack of diversity of applicants in relation to young people and families and thought that it was important to seek applicants from a broader range of community members.” Strange that we happen to know of at least 2 applications from well versed residents who just happen to also be ‘family’ members with young children. Their ‘rejection’ has more to do with whom council doesn’t want representing the community voice than with whom they do want. Intelligent, articulate, and pro-community people we suspect would be anathema to the powers that be!

There’s also a paragraph on the review of the overall consultation strategy itself. We find the following particularly relevant: “In section on engagement tools and techniques include: disadvantage to meetings and forums as ‘can be dominated by interest groups, and disadvantage of social media as ‘individuals may submit multiple times’. Does this augur the demise of ‘multiple methods’ of community consultation?

Finally, the proposed terms of reference for the committee when it is eventually reconstituted with community reps includes the rider that VOTING POWER will only be granted to councillors! Reps will be selected on ‘agreed criteria’. Of course, these criteria remain top secret!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

See the following as items of real interest:

“Cr Lipshutz – a development in Inkerman Road that has a Condition requiring that a laneway be properly made that will cost the developer. Asked that this Condition be reviewed.”

“Cr Delahunty – advised that she had met with the Chairperson of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust who had updated her on thek Trust’s current deliberations. Said that she understood that there is nothing preventing the Councillor Trustee members keeping the full Cpouncillor group updated on the Trust’s deliberations.”

Readers should also peruse the report on the ABC studios site and its potential sale for residential development.

PS: A very quick search has revealed some further fascinating comparisons between Glen Eira Council and its neighbours regarding the delegation to the CEO. Unlike Glen Eira, these other councils have imposed certain limitations on the powers of their CEOs. Glen Eira appears to set no limits!

Stonnington – without the concurrence of the Mayor communicated to the delegate at a meeting or conference convened by him or the Mayor for the purpose of informal discussion (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/your-council/about-council/council-delegations/)

Bayside – If the issue, action, act or thing is an issue, action, act or thing which involves:

4.1 awarding a contract exceeding the value of $300,000 for an annual capital works contract;

4.2 awarding a contract exceeding $100,000 per annum for the supply of goods and services for a period exceeding 5 years;

4.3 approving a contract variation that exceeds 20% of the original contract sum, where the original contract sum is $250,001 or greater;

(http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/10.15_Instrument_of_Delegation_to_CEO_-_2013.pdf)

 

Boroondara – A new power to acquire or dispose of other interests in land to the value of $500,000 or less (excluding GST) is inserted.

Under the existing delegation, the Chief Executive Officer also has the power to vary contracts which were approved by Council. The power is conditional upon expenditure limits, being: [if] the value of the contract is greater than $500,000, the aggregate value of the contract (taking into account the value of expenditure for the further term and the value of the variation) may not increase by more than or 10% or $100,000 whichever is lesser.

(http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Your%20Council/Meetings%20and%20Agendas/Council/20130527/Report7%20Instruments%20of%20Delegation.pdf)

Monash – Increase the maximum value of contracts that can be awarded by the Chief Executive Officer, to $250,000.

(http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/reports/pdftext/cp28may13/6.1.pdf)

 

 

July 17, 2013

Waiting, Waiting, Waiting……

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

concern

letters

 

July 16, 2013

What Lipshutz Wants Lipshutz Gets?

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

What Lipshutz wants, Lipshutz gets and to hell with the cost! That’s the only plausible view that residents can take on the Conservatory Affair. Lipshutz and his mates want a café instead of restoring and maintaining the site as the previous council resolution decreed. So, all the resources of council are put at his and his mates’ disposal. For example:

  1. A dubious and far from ‘objective’ set of survey questions
  2. The printing of thousands of glossy sheets containing the survey
  3. The hiring of consultants to ring people and ask the same nonsense questions
  4. The pre-paid postage for return of said surveys
  5. The ‘Have Your Say’ online version where even though residents are told they can “discuss ideas and opinions with the community” that option is not provided. All that’s there is the same old boring and rigged survey.

And last but not least, there’s the REPRINTING of large and prominent advertisements in the Caulfield Leader. Not once, but at least twice. Quite remarkable when considered against the advertisements for really important issues such as the Budget, the Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) or Council Plan or even the notification of the Special Council Meeting that would determine the budget and SRP. Here there was no ‘Have Your Say’; no repeat advertisements prominently placed. In short, no real attempt to do more than the legal requirement even though these ‘consultations’ are arguably the most important for the entire year.

Even when advertising the SRP in the Leader residents were only given 9 DAYS NOTICE since the ad appeared on the 28th May and submissions closed on the 6th June! In contrast, the Conservatory Survey is featured on council’s home page, appeared this week as part of ‘community news’ on page 2 and then a separate 3 column ad on page 4. This was a repeat of the 2nd July advertisement (albeit smaller)!

Given all of this, we must therefore query:

  • How much is being spent on a really dubious consultation process on something that has already come up 3 times previously?
  • Why isn’t this same effort and amount spent on the really crucial consultations?
  • Would this emphases on publicity be different if Lipshutz didn’t fear that there would be strong opposition to the idea of granting public open space to commercial interests and as the Friends of Caulfield Park point out, the countless ‘unknowns’ as to costs of ‘development’ and the potential to destroy the heritage area of the park?
  • How far will council go in order to subvert and create the responses that they want and at what cost to ratepayers? Why is the ‘survey’ so reprehensively skewed?
  • To what extent does the principle of ‘winky pop’ apply here since both Lipshutz and Hyams have made it absolutely clear that they favour cafes and hence are they guilty of ‘pre-judgement’?
  • What else is there that the public isn’t being told? We repeat our earlier comments – who will pay for ‘developments’ such as roads, toilets, sewerage, lighting, outfitting kitchens, etc. And the $64 dollar question – why is one man’s wishes being pandered to to such an extent at the probable cost of tens of thousands of ratepayers’ money?

Finally, there was one resolution carried at another council recently which basically clipped the wings of administrators in that any consultation (ie hired consultants) worth over $10,000 had to come to council for approval. Not a bad idea we say!

 

July 16, 2013

Compare & Contrast – Again & Again!

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

plazaCOMMENT: The irony of this situation should not be lost on anyone. How ‘unreasonable’ that the land owner should want to know what the tenant has in store for their land! Pity that when council hands out carte blanche to the MRC and the Alma Club it doesn’t insist on the same processes. Instead vague, nebulous, and airy-fairy ideas that are likely to change ten times over, get the go ahead!

++++++++++++++++++

And from The Stonnington Leader –

car share

COMMENT: Readers will remember the fiasco of the ‘debate’ on car sharing in Glen Eira. The same old arguments were trotted out – ‘let’s think about it in the distant future’. Hardly any concrete evidence was provided in the officer’s report and when it did come back to council the resolution was to look at the issue again in a year’s time. Stonnington takes it even one step further – draft papers, and full consultation with their community. Well done Stonnington!

 

July 14, 2013

The Public Realm Becomes Private Gain

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

We’ve received the following correspondence from a resident. It reveals another very worrying aspect of governance and planning within Glen Eira Council.

Saga of 175 Balaclava Road

The development at 175 Balaclava Road in Caulfield North is a corner block facing onto the south side of Balaclava Road and on the western side onto Elmhurst Road. It is zoned Residential 1. It is a narrow, elongated block, approximately 9 x 46 metres. In previous incarnations the land housed a petrol station and a car repair shop, but for many years after that the site was vacant.

A planning application was made in 2006 by a developer for a three storey building comprising 8 units on the site.

The final resolution of planning issues was by mediation at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The VCAT order which confirmed the mediation conditions became the planning permit. A planning permit was issued in January 2007, followed by a corrected permit in May 2007.

That proponent went bust and the site and the permit passed to another developer.

The site had toxicity issues – hydrocarbons, asbestos, and heavy metals. A site environmental assessment report was produced July 2008. Some underground storage tanks were removed, but a complete clean-up of the site did not occur. Instead, the remedy was to cover the whole site with concrete, with the agreement of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

While the standard setback in Balaclava Road is 6 metres, here there was none. At the rear of the block is a sewerage easement. This became the place for a tree (we will see if one appears or not). Little or no permeable area, or open space was provided.

Construction began early in 2013.

In May a framework for balconies appeared over Balaclava Road and Elmhurst Road. Although impressions of the completed building had been put on hoardings around the site it was not apparent balconies were projecting over the street (and casual observers probably did not consider such a thing possible). Clarification was repeatedly sought from the local council. A building inspector said he had visited the site and suggested the projections were verandahs rather than balconies and that they were in accordance with the permit. The permit stated that these balconies should not impinge more than 1 metre into the public domain.

An inquiry was made at the council office to see the plans for the development. The plan showed balconies extending over both roads. The plan was approved on 10 September 2010. At least three extensions of time must have been granted.

There was also a request to see the planning permits for the site. A member of council staff said that the request would incur a fee of $52 for the ‘history’ of the site. Section70 of the Planning and Environment Act was cited: “The responsible authority must make a copy of every permit that it issues available at its office for inspection by any person during office hours free of charge.” A staffer said she would get a copy of the permit and went away.

She came back without the permit and accompanied by a man named ‘John’ who said he was an enforcement officer. John explained that viewing of the permit was not necessary as it was ‘more or less’ the same as the VCAT order.

Glen Eira Council said there would be a delay in providing the permits because the permits had to come from archives offsite. A couple of weeks later, council said that the files could not be located in the archives, and later still that the files had been located and forwarded to the council, but had been mislaid in the council offices. Further inquiry was met with polite but firm hostility – more inquiry was not welcome, and council would forward advice when the files were found. That was weeks ago, and the advice is still not forthcoming.

And what of the public space occupied by developers in this way?

In the case of 175 Balaclava Road, if setback and permeability rules had been applied it is likely that two units would have to be removed from the development – a loss of over $1million to the developer. The occupation of public space over the footpath is equivalent to a gift of at least $50,000 to the developer. Indeed the developer advertises the ‘private’ ‘huge balconies’ as a key feature of the place.

On May 6th this publicity was downloaded –

SMALL BOUTIQUE DEVELOPMENT – HUGE STAMP DUTY SAVINGS! – 1 + STUDY

175 BALACLAVA ROAD – CAULFIELD

 Selection of designer 1 and 2 bedroom apartments starting from $450,000. Buy now off the plan for massive stamp duty savings. Ideally suited to owner occupiers or the astute investor. In a sought after location close to shops, cafes, bars, Monash University, Chadstone Shopping Centre, parklands and with easy access to public transport and within close proximity to the CBD.

 Features include: high quality fittings throughout, designer kitchen with granite bench tops and glass splashbacks, reverse cycle air conditioning, security entrance, individual secure undercover car park with storage cage, huge balconies, open plan living.

 Charles Marvelli: 0423 530 172

On Friday 24 May 2013 the Estate Agent for this site rang back to tell me there were 3 units left, a ground floor unit with one bedroom and a study was selling at $550,000, while a two-bedroom unit on the first storey was $612,000. The units would become available early next year.

According to the ‘responsible’ authorities spoken to at local and state government level there are no rules regarding the occupation of public space by developers. It is terra nullius – free for the taking, by developers at least. Our loss their gain, all facilitated by government authorities and the courts.

Who bears the legal liability for private occupiers of public open space? Is it the council (and therefore rate payers) who issued the permit? Who has the right of use of this public space? Is it exclusive to the building occupant? Is a homeless person who sleeps on a balcony occupying public space committing trespass? Can someone store goods there rent free? Can anyone attach posters or banners to these balconies? If there’s an accident who pays? What is council’s policy on allowing developers to extend into the public realm?

Reflecting on my experience with the above, it is clear that

1/ It is often very difficult to discover what the history of a development is, especially when conducted over such a long time frame. Many residents come and go in that time.

2/ The operation of planning in Glen Eira, and in the State, is unduly complex and not especially transparent.

3/ There is a distinct lack of clarity in the operation of planning rules – in Glen Eira and in  planning generally there is a strong tendency for abandonment of rules in favour of development of any kind. Exception is the rule.

4/ Developers, Glen Eira Council and VCAT appear to use complexity in planning schemes and processes to subvert opposition from communities.

5. Council’s planning register which is a legal requirement is far from accurate and up to date. Much detail in missing and even what’s there is impossible to decipher.

Simple planning rules would be adequate – areas for development prescribed, mandatory height limits applied, and open space and permeable areas mandated on a scientific basis.

Where planning rules and their implementation is not transparent the public is right to be suspicious.

++++++++++++++++++++++

COMMENT

Worthy of mention is the fact that we believe that some of the public questions that suddenly went astray and hence weren’t read out by Burke, concerned this development and these issues! Questions galore arise:

  • Does the community receive any compensation for this encroachment on public land? If not, why not?
  • Does council have a policy on such issues? Where is it? Other councils do have extensive policies that state clearly the conditions upon which public land can be used and the cost to the developer. (uploaded here)
  • How many other ‘gifts’ have developers received from Council – especially in residential areas?
  • Why have so many standards contained in the planning scheme been ignored – ie setbacks, excessively high walls on neighbouring properties, failure to respect neighbourhood character and countless others?
  • What does all this say about council’s mandatory record keeping processes?
  • Why are residents subjected to false claims for payment?
  • Is there a ‘cover-up’ going on here?

We’ve also received the following photographs: (a) the developer’s ‘vision’, and (b) the construction phase at two different angles and at different time periods.

balconies

balcony2-1

bala2p-1

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »