June 16, 2013

Community Plan Versus Council Plan

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

No submissions were received on the ‘Community/Council Plan’ or the Strategic Resource Plan. Here’s what the councillors said.

LIPSHUTZ: noted that no submissions were received on the Council Plan and Strategic Resource plan so the ‘motion’ stands.

DELAHUNTY: Began by saying that in Glen Eira the terms Council Plan and Community Plan were interchangeable and that she ‘disagrees with this practice’. Said that the ‘community plan is the community plan’ and the council plan is a ‘separate document to that’. The council plan ‘outlines’ what council ‘intends to do’ but it’s based on community ideas of ‘what we should be doing’. Went on to say that if they had done it like other councils then maybe there would have been some submissions. Thought that ‘it is confusing’ the way it is presented ‘at the moment’ and ‘not in step with any other council’ and that ‘we are underselling ourselves’ if council doesn’t believe it can ‘strategically plan out our term in office’. Supported the motion because it is ‘true’ that there were no submissions but she doesn’t support the process that lead to the motion.

HYAMS: Said that he liked calling what was going to be done for the community the ‘community plan’ rather than ‘council plan’. Said that what council does is ‘put them both together and incorporate’ what the community wants into the council plan. Didn’t think that ‘having this delineation’ stopped people from putting in submissions and that people weren’t that ‘pedantic’. Whilst ‘disappointing’ that no submissions were forwarded that this could be seen as ‘a vote of confidence from the public’ and that ‘people tend to be more involved in things they’re not happy with’. Said that council would ‘continue to consult with the community’ and that they would ‘take on board anything they tell us’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

June 14, 2013

Danby & The Blue Bloods!

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

Source: Australian Jewish News, 12th June 2013, Page 21

Time to Throw out Conservative councillors

A few weekends ago nearly 1500 locals gathered to support AJAX Senior Football Club when it recently played away at Princes Park in South Caulfield. Yet this club has been barred from home games at the ground by an unfair and unknown decision-making process wielded by the seemingly all powerful bureaucrats hidden in the halls of Glen Eira Town Hall.

Over a decade in politics I have observed with increasing bemusement the relative weakness of most elected councillors compared to the officials who seem to dominate Glen Eira Council. It must be said that the chief executive Andrew Newton of Glen Eira Council is polite and highly professional.

Many of the Glen Eira councillors are well-intentioned people but their conservative values dictated by the Liberal party have put them at odds with their community, have made them weak and they have not sought to bring much needed transparency to decision-making. New Councillor Mary Delahunty will make a difference.

Residents of Caulfield are fed up by the popular local footy club being barred from its local ground or by its over-development by a rapacious racing club fawned over by conservative councillors.

Sorry to say, however, the answer for Glen Eira residents fed up with overweening power of unelected professionals is more politics, not less.

Glen Eira voters must turf out the conservative councillors afraid to take on the bureaucrats.

Their replacements must run on an explicit program of asserting themselves over the civil servants of Glen Eira.

I am afraid that is the only way AJAX Senior Football will get to Princes Park, where so many of their boisterous local family and friends celebrated the opportunity for them to play in an “away” game.

 

MICHAEL DANBY

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

Challenging council on ground allocation

Regarding Council allocation Mayor Hyams has not quite got it right/ Ajax could have got the Princes Park allocation and Old Haileybury could have stayed at McKinnon Reserve.

Alternatively, Old Haileybury could have been sent to GlenHuntly Oval and shared that ground with Caulfield Grammarians, where no junior Sunday games occur.

That way, no existing ground allocation would need to be cut. Glen Eira Council could have catered for the existing tenants and also catered for its real community club around Princes Park – AJAX FC where the junior play on a Sunday.

So as Councillor Hyams has advised in Council Minutes – that Old Haileybury has been moved due to the need to give the Mckinnon Reserve a rest. It is safe to assume that Old Haileybury will be moved back to its traditional home ground for 2014 opening the EOI (expression of interest) process for Princes Park?

IAN FAYMAN

 

June 13, 2013

Racecourse, Governance and More Development!

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

There are some very interesting public questions as well as a few other events from Tuesday night’s meeting that are worthy of highlighting. First the public question on the Racecourse:

“At council meetings I note reports are frequently given by representatives who attend other bodies such as the MAV on behalf of council and reports are given. This being the case why do our three representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees never give a report, because it is absolutely impossible to find out what is going on in the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Do the Glen Eira Council Trustees realise that their residents are actually never granted permission to attend a CRT MEETING although this is advertised as being possible on The City of Glen Eira website as being the case? Is council prepared to take any action to ensure that the entrance to our reserve from Glen Eira Road is made to be more welcoming?

Or is council prepared to have the entrance pathway sealed and cleaned so that wheelchairs and prams do not collect horse excreta over the tyres and what action can be taken to remove the barrier at the eastern end of the pathway. A person in a wheelchair would have to reverse all the way to get out if unable to remove the barrier when in their wheelchair. This barrier has been in place for quite some time.

Could our representatives on CRT walk on this path and into the park and assess the situation in detail rather than speed through by car? Council came to a decision with the Melbourne Racing Club regarding this entrance issue and once again it seems the non-racing public has come off with a very bad result as it is being currently administered. Can our three trustees move to improve the situation for all residents of Glen Eira even those travelling in wheel chairs and pushing prams?”

The Mayor read the response on behalf of the Councillors who are appointed as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust. He said:

“Thank you for your questions.

1. The premise in your first question however is not correct. Whereas there are Council representatives on various committees and bodies representing the views and interests of the Council – hence reports are made to and received by Council – that is not the case with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.

Council is requested by the State Government to nominate Councillors to be appointed as Trustees. Council nominated 6 Councillors and it was the State Government that then appointed the Trustees. The three Councillors who are Trustees do not sit on the Trust as Council representatives per se but as Trustees. Any enquiries about the deliberations of the Trust should be directed to the Trust or to its chairperson, Mr Greg Sword.

2. We are aware that to date residents have not been granted permission to address the Trust. The decision as to whether a non-Trustee may address the Trust is determined by a majority of the Trustees. Council has advocated for the Trust to be more open and transparent, and will continue to do so.

3. Council has advocated for some time and continues to advocate that the tunnel entrance from Glen Eira Road be more welcoming and accessible to the public. It is for the Trust however to ensure that the entrance is clean and not for Council.

4. As Trustees we will certainly be raising with the Trust the issues to which you refer.”

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

The in camera report contains the following:

Crs Lipshutz/Delahunty

That Council

i) Rescind its 18 December 2012 resolution to appoint Green Home Green Planet Pty Ltd, ACN 137 823 360 as the contractor under EOI number 2013.030

Two points bear making here:

  • The Local Law does not have provision for rescinding motions as we’ve stated numerous times
  • This council appears to make its own rules as it goes along and when it suits. For example the recent resolution to enter into further ‘community consultation’ regarding the Caulfield Park Conservatory was made WITHOUT rescinding a previous motion that the conservatory be ‘restored’ and ‘redeveloped’.

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

Finally, there is this Request for a Report regarding the ABC Studios in Elsternwick. We have no doubt that since this has reared its head and has come up at a council meeting that plenty of ‘negotiations’ have already occurred and that the potential token ‘open space’ that Council might be granted will be offset by another huge, multi-storey development! Watch this space!

Crs Pilling/Delahunty

That a report be prepared on the ABC site at Elsternwick. This report should detail past history, current usage and outline the present future plans for the site. It should also identify types of community uses and benefits for at least part of the site and set out strategies and steps Council can take to achieve this.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) declared a Conflict of Interest as he lives in close proximity to the site.

9.06PM the CEO left the Chamber.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

June 12, 2013

More Spin

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

PS: Esakoff was absent and Magee arrived late – just in time for public questions!

LOCAL LAW COMMITTEE

LIPSHUTZ: said that the ‘two major issues’ were the tree register and local law 326 (organised sport). Tree register is council’s wish to identify ‘the best sort of trees in the area’ and can’t be removed without permits. They looked at ‘appeal process’ for trees on private property because they thought ‘there might be some objections’ by landowners since ‘people who nominate trees’ are generally neighbours. ‘Process won’t be nomination’ but a ‘panel of arborists’ who will ‘go around the municipality and nominate trees’. Appeals will be for damage too. Corporate counsel is ‘drawing up further provisions’. Hoped that at next meeting IN SEPTEMBER, there would be the ‘final draft’.

The other issue of organised sports had caused a lot of ‘angst’ so instead of changing the law and ‘making a mess of it’ they thought that the best option was to say ‘how we define’ and interpret. Claimed that this was the ‘common’ approach in ‘acts of parliament’ that they ‘tell you how to interpret’ the law.  For people with an ‘allocation’ they can play and those that don’t have an allocation can also play on surfaces as long as they don’t damage the grounds and they can ‘play there without fear of prosecution’.

On the ‘review’ of the ‘whole local law’ there might be ‘other areas’ that people want to speak about but that was for the next meeting in September.

COMMENT: not a single word was said regarding the alcohol free zones in Bentleigh shopping strip. Thus a major council decision has been made without any public discussion, without any public comment, and without residents being privy to the evidence, the arguments, nor the circumstances which lead to this decision.

RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS

Lipshutz moved an amendment that in any building of 3 or more dwellings that a sign be in the foyer informing people that there are no residential parking permits available for this building and people with a ‘disability’ or those people with ‘extenuating circumstances’ could apply for a residential parking permit. Seconded by Okotel. Lipshutz explained the scheme that residents could apply because there was ‘increasing pressure’ for parking and people park in streets so that residents ‘themselves’ can’t park in their own streets. Said that ‘where we have minimal change areas’ and ‘large developments coming up’ there aren’t parking permits. Said that they ‘wanted people to know’ that if ‘you’re going to buy’ then you won’t get a permit. There are other circumstances such as people becoming injured or are ill so that they should be able to apply for a parking permit. Claimed that often people don’t know that they won’t be eligible for a permit since few look up the actual permit papers so this will make it clear in that the developer has to have signs publicising the fact. ‘That means that residents can feel happy that their streets will not be clogged’. Said that this is also a warning to developers that council won’t be helping them out by ‘allowing’ permits.

OKOTEL: supported the amendment and said that every level of government needs to ‘take into account’ the needs of people with disability. Council needs to address the issues of parking but also to recognise that these measures mightn’t suit those people with ailments. At local level very important ‘that we do take into account’ those people with disability.

LOBO: said that ‘personally I don’t have any problems’ with the ‘exclusion’. ResCode was ‘hypothetical’  and ‘definitely not practical’. Outlined ResCode provisions (ie one car space for 1 & 2 bedrooms, etc.) Called these ‘nothing but a joke’ since today most couple both work and therefore have 2 cars. ‘Applying this code does not decrease parking demand’. Talked about alternate transport and who was ‘monitoring this’ and ‘complying’. Said that this all leads to the ‘destruction’ of people’s ‘facilities’. Claimed that Glen Eira had been given the ‘pill’ to solve the problem. On the one hand there is the claim that Glen Eira ‘is compact’ and on the other hand keep building. Mentioned the Alma Club and 75 unit application with only 4 visitor car parking spots – ‘the government can tell it to the swans’ that this is ‘sufficient’. At ‘this rate our suburbs are on the verge of being destroyed’. Reminded people that two years ago he claimed that we’re heading toward Calcutta and that one councillor disagreed and they had a bet. Said that the parking in Glen Eira is a ‘sheer schemozzle’ and the government lets trailers and boats to park in streets that only makes the situation a lot worse. Said that in January the issue was put to the local MP who was asked to take the issue up with the State Government. He is still waiting for a response.

HYAMS: Lobo is right on ResCode and that everyone knows that people who live in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments have more than one car. When they have applications they always hear about parking and traffic from objectors so this policy says if you want to live here then if you’ve got cars then you won’t get a parking spot. So this ‘encourages people to limit themselves to the number of cars’ they have and ‘can fit in the building’ so that it doesn’t impact on the streets. This is a ‘good policy’ and also solves one of the issues about people knowing this via the signs.

MOTION PUT: in favour – Lipshutz, Hyams, Sounness, Pilling, Delahunty, Okotel. Against – Lobo.

COMMENT:  Lipshutz obviously has no qualms in fudging the facts. The policy DOES NOT MENTION MINIMAL CHANGE. Secondly, minimal change areas are the major recipients of parking permits. Thirdly, council’s sudden concern for those residents with disability is quite touching considering that in the past there have been applications where disability parking has been removed and converted into ‘visitor parking’ – hence council has given permission for the REMOVAL of designated disability parking spots.

Lobo’s arguments are quite amazing we believe. As objectors pointed out at the Alma Club planning conference, RESCODE is a guideline. Councils can do as they wish in terms of residential parking permits – as we illustrated in a previous post. It is mind boggling that these councillors always manage to find convenient scapegoats for their own reluctance, and failure to address such issues head on.

 

June 11, 2013

What Residents Think

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

Here are some extracts from public submissions on the Budget & Community/Council Plan –

Centenary Park Car Park

#1 – The plan will have little effect on the number of cars which park on the roadside. The proposal to turn the northern car park into a garden area will to a degree isolate the childrens playground and the barbecue area. The removal of mature eucalypts which are an integral part of the park is an unattractive and environmentally unfriendly proposition. In conclusion I put it to you that the expense ($600,000) cannot be justified and it is in everyones interest to leave things as they are.

#2 – currently it is only during. the football season that there is insufficient parking space. This is on Sunday between 9am and 5pm when up to fifty or more cars are parked at any one time in brady road and leonie avenue. this amounts to about 25 days in the year. the cricket activity does not attract as many cars. the increased parking capacity in the proposed development of 63 to 75 (12 cars} will have little effect relative to the current situation,…. currently having two separate car parks – each with two exitientry points and separated by the wooded area, the traffic flow is better managed…..i agree that pedestrian safety is paramount however to date i am unaware 0 f any incident involving injury. with this background i put it to you that there is no perceived benefit in spending $600,000- to accomodate twelve more cars (which equates to $50,000 per car space.)

Caulfield Park

sports Ground Tolerant Grasses- by far the largest sum is allocated for this item which is purely to serve the purposes of active sport. An equivalent sum should be allocated to serve the needs of the many thousands of non-active sport users of the park. However. by our reckoning the sum of all the other budget items for Caulfield Park is at best $291.500.

Park Pathway lighting. We assume that this is to light the perimeter path. We also assume it includes the removal of the now redundant lights which used to light the central pedestrian pathway until it was relocated. These lights are still illumined every night and serve no useful purpose. The unsightly poles should be removed and the area planted with more trees to enhance vistas, provide more shade and increase habitat for birds across the centre of the park.

6. Playground Shade Sails Oval Number 2. This is another puzzling item as there is no playground near Oval No.2. so more explanation is required about this item. If money is to be spent on playgrounds it would be preferable to install some more play equipment at the main Park Crescent playground. on the large area recently created adjacent to Park Crescent and covered with unsightly wood chips. This area could be greatly improved by the addition of some play equipment to suit the 5-10 year age group. which is generally lacking in the park. This would be a better use of the $30.000 than installing shade sails at a non existent playground

A proper study to identify and secure an altemative location for the depot. Unless a specific study is carried out nothing is going to happen and the relocation of the depot is crucial step to providing more open space in this area of North Caulfield.

An in-depth study into the impact of climate change upon the trees in the west end of the park. Studies undertaken by the Melbourne Cify Council (Urban Forest strategy) indicate that within in the next decade 27 per cent of the current tree population in the cify’s parks are expected to die and 44 per cent in the next 20 years

Biodiversity/Sustainability

Biodiversity protection is an important part of Glen Eira’s Sustainable Living Plan, and it should be acknowledged with an accountable budget allocation. All decisions and measures taken by council should include an assessment of impacts on our local biodiversity and its sustainability.

Child Care

Year after year, we are presented with child care fee rises as a fait accompli. It would be respectful-and an act of good public relations- to present parents with the reasons for the increases. I would like to see a justification for not being be/ow average of the 38 centres in Glen Eira. As a community-based and notfor-profit service, I would not expect to see these fees on par with the plethora of privately run child care services in Glen Eira. Being average amongst profit-driven businesses is not a good thing.

Is the staff at Glen Eira’s centres any better qualified? Is more money put into their professional development? Do our children have better equipment or grounds? • How are these fees justified when other services provide meals and nappies and Glen Eira does not?

I believe that price increases and indeed, any fees at or above average, needs to be explained and justified: we are entitled to know where the fees are spent and to either rest assured that this service has an advantage over others- as perhaps an explanation might show- or to choose an alternate service that supplies nappies and meals for the same fee.

 

June 9, 2013

Nero Still Fiddling Whilst…..

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

Another item up for decision on Tuesday night is the residential parking permit scheme. Our take on the proposals are that whilst Rome is burning our glorious council keeps fiddling and fiddling rather than addressing the problem head on as countless other councils have done – some in fact have been at it for over a decade. All Glen Eira seems capable of doing is burying its head in the sand whilst pretending to protect streets in Housing Diversity. But the horse has well and truly bolted so the suggested solution is akin to putting a bandaid on a gaping and suppurating wound. What is required is radical surgery.  Here’s why –

  • Council totally ignores the fact that Minimal Change Areas are being reshaped by 2 and 3 unit developments – ie the ‘problem’ is not just in Housing Diversity
  • Granting permits for car parking waivers only exacerbates the problem everywhere
  • The consistent refusal to introduce well researched and designed Parking Precinct plans or parking overlays (except for student housing) means further adhoc and hence substandard planning.
  • A policy that shunts car parking to ‘neighbouring’ streets is only transferring the issue elsewhere

The Akehurst ‘solution’ is simple – no Residential Parking permits in Housing Diversity (We’ve uploaded the report here).  It does not hold up to close examination and is a tacit admission of council’s spectacular failure to protect amenity and manage the issue. We highlight the following extracts from this ‘report’:

The policy has been applied for 10 years. In this time 457 dwellings have been excluded from obtaining a RPP (Residential Parking Permit).

COMMENT: From 2002 to roughly 2007/8 Council approved 600 dwellings per year. Since then the figure has escalated to approximately 1000 dwellings per year with only about 30% being single dwellings. On such estimates we can argue conservatively that around 5,500 units have been built. To only have 457 dwellings EXCLUDED in a decade is thus a total joke.

Akehurst does briefly note that “some councils deliberately selectively choose to under provide car parking in terms of the ResCode rates” but Glen Eira has always applied the standard ResCode rates related to bedroom numbers and no change to this position is envisaged in this review.

COMMENT: That’s it! A blanket statement with no justification, no facts, no figures, no nothing. Once again, this council washes its hands of anything that involves change and might just threaten the profits of developers. The ‘excuse’ that if change is required then it is considered preferable to link this to new developments  totally ignores that fact that ‘new developments’ are also rampant in Minimal Change! What’s even more damning is that Akehurst himself goes on to define ‘medium density’ as ‘two dwellings or more’!

Councillors and residents have to ask:

  • Why is this policy only applicable to Housing Diversity given that 2 or more dwellings are also mushrooming in Minimal Change and will continue to do so given that the infill in diversity areas is running out?
  • Why the failure to plan strategically, holistically, and appropriately?
  • Why can other councils (listed below) introduce a variety of options and Glen Eira is totally incapable or unwilling?

Moreland – Council issues up to two residential parking permits depending on whether or not there is a driveway crossover to your property.  If you have a crossover, then you are eligible for one permit only. AND Properties are not eligible for parking permits where approval of a planning permit for subdivision was issued after 31 August 2011 and this results in an increase in the number of separate occupancies on that site. (http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/parking-roads-and-transport/parking-permits-moreland/residential-parking-permits.html)

Bayside –  – 3 permits AND Multi Unit Development Properties are not eligible to participate in the scheme. (http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/parking_residential_parking_permits.htm)

Port Phillip – One action pursued by the City of Port Phillip since 1997 has been not to issue resident or visitor parking permits to owners or occupiers of properties in instances where the developer / applicant for Planning Permit had not provided sufficient off street (on-site) car parking in accordance with the Planning Scheme or other council policies.  Foreshore Parking Permits are still permitted at No Parking Permit Note properties.

As of the 1 October 2002, this policy was extended to include all new residential developments* where the number of households increased on a property, irrespective of the level of off street parking provided. (http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/resident-visitor-foreshore-parking-permits.htm)

Darebin – Each household can have a maximum of two permits. Households with off-street parking (eg driveway), right of way (laneway between house blocks) or with a garage are entitled to one permit only. (http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=6215)

Monash – single dwelling 2 permits; 2-4 dwellings 1 permit; 5 or more dwellings no permit

Whitehorse – 1 dwelling 3 permits; 2-5 dwellings 1 permit; more than 5 dwellings no permit.

It’s also worth noting that Frankston has a visitor car parking scheme based on the WIDTH OF THE RESIDENTIAL ROAD/STREET. The narrower the street, no parking! (http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/library/scripts/objectifyMedia.aspx?file=pdf/309/09.pdf&..)

Boroondara – multi unit development prior to 2001 receive one permit. Post 2001 don’t get a permit. (http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Your%20Council/Parking%20and%20traffic/ResidentialParkingPermitPolicy2011pdf.pdf)

 

June 7, 2013

Snails & Glaciers

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

The snail’s pace of innovation, or simply change at Glen Eira, is exemplified by several items in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting.

LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE MINUTES

  • The Tree Register is still a work in progress after years and years of talking
  • Organised sport under section 326 still requires further ‘amendments’ – again 8 years down the track
  • Alcohol Free Zones in Bentleigh. We must admit to loving the convoluted logic in this one.

The committee discussed the implementation of an alcohol free zone in the Bentleigh shopping strip area. It was considered that behaviour under the influence of alcohol was a matter for the Police, not for local government. No further action.

Readers will remember that this issue has been on the agenda for at least 3 years now. More to the point, Councils have the responsibility of introducing the alcohol free zone via their planning scheme as they did with the Caulfield Racecourse zone. Other councils (ie Kingston recently) seem to believe that public safety and security come first and have introduced such zones in the past year. Glen Eira continually passes the buck. Introducing such as zone is not a police matter – it is 100% in Council’s purview.

We also question the ‘no further action’ take. How a minority set of councillors can make such a recommendation prior to full discussion and debate in council chamber is unbelievable.  Given that the practice in Glen Eira is simply to ‘accept’ all committee recommendations this will probably become ‘law’ but without full and open discussion. The community deserves far better. What are the real facts? What are the statistics? Where is the research? How many incidents have occurred in this area? Where is the transparency and accountability?

Finally, there is the following gem ironically listed under ‘other business’. We would have thought that the following item represents the core business of this committee!

Possible review of all of Council’s Local Law with public consultation.

Action – Corporate Counsel to draft report for consideration by full Council regarding a potential review of all of Council’s Local Laws. Report to include introduction of proposed new Local Laws during that process.

We can only presume that this is Glen Eira Speak for the ‘potential’ review of Meeting Procedures with the proviso that it’s a mere ‘maybe’ and that it shouldn’t stop all the other tinkering that is in the pipe line. It’s also worth remembering that the Councillor Questions policy was removed from the 2010 review of the Local Law with the ‘promise’ that the policy would be looked at again. Now three years later, it is still unsighted and rotting in the archives.

There is plenty more in this agenda which needs commenting upon. For this post we will simply conclude with this from the incamera discussions –

12.2 under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution

We again can only surmise that this means some form of payment to individuals/companies etc. It would certainly be welcomed if residents were informed as to whether the issue is now resolved and what the outcomes were!

 

June 5, 2013

How To Rig The Game!

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

Tonight’s Planning Conference on the Alma Club development revealed in all its sordid glory how rigged the game really is. To their credit however, the developers’ rep did show up and fronted an audience of over 50 people including councillors Delahunty, Hyams, Lobo and Sounness. Magee chaired the conference. Andrew Bromley was the council planner. Even Newton made an appearance for a short time.

Several points need to be highlighted right from the start –

  • The developers and council have agreed that a 4.75% open space levy will be applied. Absolutely amazing when other councils (Bayside, Port Phillip, Moreland and countless others have introduced a MINIMUM of 5% levy across their entire municipalities for a meagre 3 lot subdivision. Here we have 75 units and the blood money is a paltry 4.75%. It would also be interesting to know: who agreed to this? when was it signed on the dotted line?
  • The developers ‘experts’ have verified that 4 visitor car parking spots are ‘adequate’
  • The one bedroom apartments will be exempt from car parking spots!
  • The claim is that the units (in a Minimal Change Area) equate to 42% of site coverage. We are certainly sceptical of this figure judging by the plans!
  • The most vital question however is that given this is in a Minimal Change Area and suggest 4 storey development, then why oh why wasn’t this application rejected right from the start under delegation? The single fact that it is a large site should not over-ride every other single ‘standard’ that is applied to the Minimal Change Area.
  • As a ‘planning conference’ this failed dismally to live up to the published council propaganda – ie ‘Where possible, attempt to resolve or reduce the issues in dispute’. Nothing of the kind happened or was even attempted!

Here is the sequence of events:

Magee claimed that residents were extremely lucky to have these ‘conferences’ because many other councils didn’t do this. Sadly, Magee neglected to mention that other councils have Planning Committees made up of councillors and residents are permitted to address full council on their objections. In Glen Eira objectors do not learn of the planners recommendations until the Friday before the application is set down for council decision and then there is no opportunity to address the council. Magee even had the gall to state that residents should wait for the recommendations and THEN LOBBY THEIR COUNCILLORS!

Bromley started ‘the process’ by explaining the plans. 75 dwellings, 4 storeys. Internal departments had had a look at the application. Objections were basically about: intensity of develolpment, streetscape, parking and traffic, loss of amenity, overlooking/overshadowing, storm water etc. Bromley emphasised that his decision would be mainly looking at the Minimal Change Policy and Neighborhood Character and parking. His report would go to council for decision on the 2nd July.

Objectors then had the opportunity to speak. First speaker said that she represented 22 households and asked for clarification. Said that the Minimal Change policy talked about ‘higher yield’ which doesn’t necessarily mean ‘higher density’ and this term refers to 4 storeys and above.

Asked about the telecommunications pole and the setbacks which weren’t clear from the plans. There was also an issue about an oak tree and wanted to know how this was to be protected. Said there were ‘unclear items’ on the plans. In terms of amenity for surrounding properties, there is a substation kiosk and exhaust right near fences. How many cars each day, etc. Wanted clarification on all these issues. Also wanted to know about the ‘internal amenity’ in the 4 storey apartments because of 4 light courts from the rooftoop to ‘ground level’ as this is the only light source and none will have ventilation. Also asked about drainage and whether this had been ‘factored into the design’. Finally given the layout, how emergency services vehicles were going to have access to the apartments.

MAGEE then said that these were a lot of questions and that the answers would ‘come out in the report’

Next speaker stated that the only large dwellings were basically on Dandenong Rd and a couple along Waiora Rd but they were ‘well set back’. Was also concerned about the body corporate and the decision making when so many owners would be involved and with elevators and other things there would be long term maintenance issues.

Another Waiora Rd residents spoke about a 7 unit development next to her and there were 20 odd cars coming in and out just from this one site. Said it was a ‘complete fiasco’ that that’s been accepted by Council. This application could have over 200 cars and ‘where are they supposed to come out from’? Asked if this was ‘responsible’ for councillors to accept something like this design.

MAGEE then said that it’s the state government who is responsible for setting parking allocations and ‘it’s not something that council can change’.

Another residents said that there were ‘natural springs’ there underground and a while back water came up on Alma Rd. Wanted to know about the water tables on the site and that this site was the centre of the spring, so what measures will be taken to remove the water. And if removed will it come up in someone else’s back yard and what is the process for compensation to residents affected by this? Wanted to know if any of this has been considered and what the strategy is to deal with this. Also wanted ‘assurance’ that the pedestrian right of way would still be open to people. Bemoaned the fact that council didn’t buy the property when it had the chance.

One lady said that she has recently sold her house because she believes that ‘the amenity of the area has been destroyed’ because of all these developments, especially along Dandenong Rd. Said that she lost about $50,000 because of this when she sold. She then took Magee to task stating that the Council had violated  ResCode numerous times and ‘that it is only a guideline not a rule’. Listed several properties that don’t have the car parking that ResCode advises.

Next resident said that anyone who believes that 75 dwellings in a dead end street should have ‘their licence taken away’. Said that plenty of his friends who live in apartments have ‘two or three’ visitor car parks for blocks of 10 units. ‘How 4 car spaces could possibly serve 75′ units ..’is beyond me’.

Another Norwood St resident stated that he had ‘difficulty parking outside my own house’ because of the developments and Norwood has become a rat run through to Dandenong Rd and King David. Said that with what’s happening there are now over 120 new apartments ‘in less than two years’. Said that everything in the area has been ‘altered’ and all to the negative. Said that ‘rates have gone up and property values have gone down’.

One Wilks St resident stated that an application for 2 town houses had been rejected because it was considered ‘high density’ in a minimal change area but ’75 apartments seems to be okay’. Said that in a 16 dwelling street this represents over 400% increase. Said there’s already problems with flooding because of the slope of the land and there have been sandbags in the street.

An Alma Rd resident talked about the traffic which she knows well since she’s lived there since 1986. Said the intersection was dangerous and more traffic is only going to make it worse. Reminded councillors that they’re supposed to represent residents! Caulfield North used to be a ‘blue ribbon’ area and now it’s not. Prices are dropping and thus her children’s futures are affected.

One resident asked that the application not be ‘negotiated’ but ‘flatly rejected’.

The next few speakers all spoke about the traffic and parking and that it’s ‘out of character’ with minimal change. Asked ‘what’s the point of having minimal change’? Reiterated that ResCode is nothing but a guide and an ‘absolute minimum’. Dandenong Rd will have 300% increase in dwellings in the next few years and that ‘will flow on’ into Norwood and Palm Avenue. Said that the area had been flooded 3 times in the last few years and that’s ‘no attention’ in the plan for this. Talked about the tennis pavilion and said that it was considered for heritage listing which never came through and he wonders why. Thought it should be retained in the development.

Next resident asked about the actual construction phase and the congestion, pollution that would occur. Was concerned about the oak tree and the safety issue if it wasn’t protected fully.

One resident highlighted that council approved permits all the time and that if the new unit windows are 9 metres away then that’s okay because these new people ‘are blind’ and ‘can’t see’ anyway! Was disappointed with council for not collecting all the money it could from developers and then open space is further lost to buildings.Asked why this council is going beyond the population figures that the government expects them to meet. Said that the population had increased proportionately more than anywhere else.

One person commented that this would go to VCAT and he doubted that council could stop the development but that they had to ‘draw a line in the sand’ and insist that there be no residents parking permits for this development.

Another resident talked about the tonnes and tonnes of excavation materials that would need to be moved and estimated about 2000 truck movements ‘over four or five months’. Council therefore needs to put ‘a very big bond on the developer’  to ‘rebuild Wilks St’ because it will be ruined. Magee then said that ‘construction plans’ are often ‘put in place’ and that will ‘be part of the process’.

THE DEVELOPER’S REPRESENTATIVE

Said that he wasn’t here ‘to solve’ the issues but that’s it’s all about ‘information’ and him ‘learning from what’s been said’. Said to the first speaker that the architects’ would be happy to sit down with her and explain in ‘more detail’. Said that the planning scheme does acknowledge that it can ‘accommodate’ an area in minimal change if it’s just under 7000 square metres. Said that that’s ‘going to be the real test’ and that’s what ‘officers’ will have to do. Their view is that the proposed density ‘fits’ and that in terms of contemporary planning its becoming less important in the assessment and more about ‘quality of development’. Said it wasn’t an ambit claim and that was put together by consultants.

Said that the telecommunications tower issue is being discussed and will be moved. An arborist looked at the oak tree and they’ll ask that ‘he has another look at that issue’. Said there was no ‘unreasonable overshadowing’; car parking was ‘sufficient’ and that they provide ‘what the planning scheme says we need to provide’ but they are seeking a reduction in visitor car parking. The traffic report says that they’re ‘providing the right nunmber’ but that needs to be ‘tested’. Admitted that there would be ‘additional traffic in Wilks St.’ but they’re not starting from a ‘base line’ where there’s no traffic in Wilks St. There are 100 car parking spots on site and average it out then that will give about 500 extra movements in Wilks St but the street ‘can take that’ according to their traffic advice.

Said that site coverage is 42% because of basement car parking. There is a landscape plan and on drainage they got engineer’s advice. Not a planning issue because there’s no flooding overlay and they are ‘following it up’. If they’re successful and subdivided they will pay 4.75% of land value. Said that insurance, pedestrian right of way still needs to be negotiated with council. On construction there would be a management plan. If successful they were also willing to ‘make streetscape improvements’ in Wilks St.

There was discussion on how the money from the open space levy would be spent and Magee said that would be up to council and not the developer. Also discussion on whether the walkway represents ‘open space’ and the safety given that there had been several attacks in recent years.

When asked if anyone on the team had a concern about the people and ethics the developer’s rep responded that he took advice from experts and was guided by the planning scheme. Said that the traffic engineers have done surveys in comparable developments and they say that 4 spaces are ‘sufficient’.

Magee then summed up saying that on 2nd July the application would be decided but people can’t speak. Their opportunity will come on the 28th when the agenda goes up with the officer’s recommendations. ‘You then have the opportunity to contact the 9 councillors….you’ve got Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday’. Councillors can accept the officers’ recommendations or reject, modify them. Applicants or objectors can then go to VCAT.

One resident asked that the meeting be adjourned and that people who couldn’t be present come along for another meeting. Magee declared the meeting closed.

 

PS: we thought it would be informative if we uploaded one of the pages for the plans. Please note:

  • the ‘gated city’ effect so that emergency vehicles have literally no access.
  • the lack of sufficient open space

130606 Plan 5 of 22 Ground Flr of 1 Wilks Street

 

June 4, 2013

Coincidence?

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

On  4th September 2012 Council passed a resolution to refuse an application for a 3 storey, 11 unit development in Cromwell St, North Caulfield. Officers had recommended the go ahead arguing the usual – housing diversity, near a tram line and commercial centre, etc. On the same night, there was another application for a 4 storey development in Howitt Road. Lipshutz and Esakoff sought to reduce this second application to 3 storeys. It abutted a Minimal Change Area. In the end the 4 storey motion got through. Whilst it could be argued that we are comparing apples and oranges, it’s perhaps worthy of noting that the Cromwell St application (for 3 storeys) was rejected. We also ask, how many other 3 storey applications have got the gong from these councillors in the recent past? There was also this declaration –

Cr Lipshutz declared a conflict of interest in this item pursuant to Section 78E of the Local Government Act being an indirect interest by reason of his mother being an objector to the application.
8.19PM Cr Lipshutz left the Chamber.

The Cromwell St. saga now features in today’s Leader.

cromwell

 

June 3, 2013

Local Law

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

We’ve been waiting and waiting for the promised March appearance of the ‘review’ of the Local Law. Of particular interest will be: the fiddling with the ‘organised sport’ clause and the much awaited euphemistically called ‘tree register’ controls. More importantly we envisage that the meeting procedures aspects of the current anti-democratic law will largely remain untouched and buried in the publicity that will surround other aspects. In other words absolutely no intention of:

  • Introducing a Notice of Motion
  • Introducing a Dissent From Chair
  • Introducing a Rescission Clause

If our suspicions prove correct, then it will be most interesting to hear the arguments of Pilling who is on record as supporting a Notice of Motion and some of the other councillors. Residents should also be prepared to highlight this ‘oversight’ in their submissions.

By way of contrast once again, here is what Kingston Council is contemplating for their Local Law Amendments for the above categories (UPLOADED HERE). We remind readers once again that Glen Eira is the ONLY COUNCIL IN THE STATE OF VICTORIA that does not have a notice of motion enshrined in its local law.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »