March 17, 2013

Agenda & Racecourse

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

Two items of interest feature in the upcoming council meeting –

  • The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee
  • Council’s belated ‘position statement’ on the centre of the racecourse

The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee comes as no surprise given that it has already performed its ‘dirty deeds’ and we now have Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz as MRC Trustees. The committee has served its purpose!

The second item, whilst most welcome, is also very belated and ironic in that it reiterates many of the points that Penhalluriack was insisting upon years ago. The tragedy is, that this position is AFTER THE FACT and should have been ‘non-negotiable’ right from the start. Writing to a bunch of Ministers and parliamentarians after the horse has literally bolted rings hollow indeed.

A few points are worth pointing out in this Newton drafted pitch for posterity –

  • ‘recreation’ has morphed into ‘sporting grounds’ whereas the original ‘agreement’ forbade ‘ball games’
  • It’s also quite amusing to read ‘The area allocated for community sports grounds should be no less than the area allocated for race tracks’. Given that it was Council which passed the Centre of the Racecourse permit and allowed leggo land fencing to encroach more and more on OUR land, then these words are nothing more than another public relations exercise.
  • Lipservice is also paid to the major bone of contention –‘training should be phased out’ – but with no set time line, etc.
  • One positive note that echoes Penhalluriack and Magee is the notation that commercial rates should be paid for this Crown Land.
  • Access is of course mentioned, but not a word about why fences are still up, nor hours of access.

We reiterate. This statement is welcomed but far, far too late. The failure of the Special Committee and Newton to insist on these right from the start should never be forgotten. As for ‘outcomes’ from this? Well, we’re not holding our breath given history and certain letters from the DSE, plus Premier Napthine’s love of racing.

 

March 16, 2013

Mushrooms, Mushrooms, Mushrooms……

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

 A public question was asked at the 5th February Council Meeting. It read:

“Glen Eira Council is reported as having made a submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee investigating Development Contributions under the Planning and Environment Act. Will Council make this submission public and accessible to all? When was this issue discussed with councillors?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “In September 2012 Councils were asked a standard list of specific technical questions relating to the DPCD position paper entitled Standard Development Contributions Paper – A Preferred Way Forward.

Council officers provided answers to these technical questions in October 2012.

Councillors were informed of this during that time.

It is understood that Councils and members of the public will be given opportunities in the future to make further submissions.”

Since then there has been no public disclosure, and no further mention of this important issue. Even worse, the fact that councillors were ‘informed’ does not feature anywhere in the Records of Assembly for this period. Conclusion? Either the Records of Assembly are a total (censored) joke, the ‘informing’ was a brief verbal aside, or perhaps did not even take place?

We’re getting mightily sick of revealing how often this council is out of step with the majority of its neighbours. This is not the first time that submissions to various committees or government have not been ratified by council resolution first off (as done in other municipalities) much less made public. Residents have no idea as to how this council votes at MAV conferences; what positions will be taken, or much about anything. We even wonder if councillors get a look in, or have a say on anything. Yet they do nothing!  They allow residents to be treated like mushrooms and the disease of inaccurate reporting and secrecy continues unabated.

The development contributions is a vital issue for any municipality that is experiencing the unprecedented growth that Glen Eira is. Given that this council has REMOVED the contributions from its planning scheme it becomes even more important that residents know what council’s position is. Will Newton and his cohorts meekly accept the pro-development agenda, or will there be some insistence that ratepayers stop subsidising greed?

Below are the views of our neighbours – all made public and above board – not like Glen Eira City Council!

1. PORT PHILLIP EXTRACTS

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_3_-_Submission_to_Standard_Development_Contributions_Advisory_Committee.pdf

 

There remains a bias in the design of the proposed development contributions framework towards the establishment of development contributions in growth areas. This translates into some gaps in the frameworks application in established areas where project delivery can be much more complex and expensive that broad acre green field development. These gaps include:

• Assumptions about spare capacity in existing infrastructure to cope with development.

• The suggestion that a “25% discount” be applied to standard leviesin established areas compared to growth areas.

• Failure to recognise the complexities and additional costs associated with development in established urban areas.

• The significant land cost component in the provision of new infrastructure in established areas.

Project contingencies cost allowance set at 10% of project cost. A contingency set at a standard 10 % is very low for projects, particularly in inner urban areas. This should be scaled across a range in accordance with industry best practice and be project specific.

There is no recognition in the proposed framework that additional growth in established urban areas can create “tipping points”, exceeding infrastructure capacity and rendering some types of existing infrastructure redundant. This in turn will necessitate complete replacement in order to upgrade the capacity.

The framework proposes that historical capital works expenditure and population growth over time be used as a basis to set the contribution for new development. This approach is not supported as it:

• has no direct relationship to actual need for infrastructure generated by additional growth relies on historical spending that may not be an accurate indication of either infrastructure cost or infrastructure need

• takes no account of the nature of the population increases and subsequent infrastructure needs

• does not allow for consideration of current standards and costs of infrastructure provision

• is contrary to the basic tests of need and nexus that have long been established in setting development contributions.

2. BAYSIDE

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/5_March_2013_Councillor_Briefing.pdf

in the councillor briefing notes under – ‘proposed submission’

 

3. STONNINGTON (uploaded in full here)

  • The application of the Development Levy Scheme (DLS) to only large scale Strategic Redevelopment Areas lacks the flexibility needed to respond to the various levels of development occurring and infrastructure needs across metropolitan Melbourne. The needs in the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre are not considered.
  • That the DLS decision making process should include a Social Impact Assessment
 

March 15, 2013

‘Rat Runs’: What Can Be Done!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Transport
[9] Comments 

Bayside has a very interesting item set down for decision at its March 19th council meeting. A major development on Bay St. has been given the go-ahead by VCAT. Concerned about potential ‘rat-runs’ and other traffic problems for neighbouring streets as a consequence of this development, Bayside queried the developers’ Traffic Management Plan and did its own research and consultation. We’ve uploaded the full officers’ report, (minus photographs and diagrams) but wish to highlight here the extent that the community has been involved in shaping the outcomes for their neighbourhoods. Of course, nothing like this ever happens in Glen Eira!

Please note the extent of the following consultation –

traffic

 

March 13, 2013

Ineptitude or More Hoodwinking?

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

We’ve reported ad nauseum on the failure of this administration to provide accurate, comprehensive, and timely information to both residents and councillors. This post focuses on the regular ‘VCAT Watch’ that appears in every council meeting agenda. We’ve already commented on the fact that there is no complete record of DPC decision making in contrast to what other councils provide their communities. The Glen Eira version of reporting on VCAT cases is equally deficient and misleading.

Every agenda item is entitled ‘VCAT WATCH – (monthly) Decisions’ – where the current month’s name is inserted. Any reasonable person would then expect that what is contained in this watch does in fact represent the decisions made by VCAT for that particular month. As we will show, nothing could be further from the truth! But first, here’s how some other councils do it –

Boroondara provides regular tables outlining results according to ward. These are comprehensive, so that residents know the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of each appearance at VCAT plus whether the decision to grant or deny the permit was made by council or under delegation. (Click to enlarge).

boroondara

Bayside also includes a list, and then a full report on each decision where residents can again see the tabulated form of success or failure.

Pages from 19_February_2013_Ordinary_Meeting_Agenda_without_confidentialGlen Eira in contrast relies on its ‘VCAT WATCH’ where often very selective editing accompanies the ‘summary’ of the VCAT decision. We’ve taken the trouble to go through all ‘VCAT WATCHES’ FROM February 2012 to February 2013. The results are fascinating in that:

  • Not one single judgement has occurred when it is stated it did occur. Once a decision has been made the applicant, council, and objectors are notified that day by email. There is absolutely no excuse that a judgement which was handed down in say November 2012, does not feature until February 2013 – even though the tag line for the February agenda item states ‘February Decisions’. Let’s have a little honesty shall we, and simply label this as ‘past VCAT decisions’!
  • Not all VCAT decisions are reported. Why not, if this is meant to be genuine and honest feedback to councillors and residents? For example: in August 2012 there are 9 VCAT decisions listed on the VCAT website. Council only reported on 4 of these decisions. What happened to the other five? Why weren’t these included and reported upon? This trend is also evident for the following months – April 2012 – Glen Eira reported on 3 out of 7; November 2012 – 4 out of 5; October – 6 out of 7.
  • Nowhere does Glen Eira report on its ‘success rate’ at VCAT. Residents do not know the total figures, as they do with other councils, nor how many decisions are upheld, set aside, varied.

Below is our table of the VCAT WATCH from council minutes. The first column lists the applicant (or objector); the second column the date the decision was handed down and the last column lists the date that Council reported the decision. In practically every case there was at least one council meeting in the intervening period when the result could have been reported upon. It shouldn’t take 3 months to get something onto the agenda and then pretend it is current!

Highland properties 15th November 2011 7th February 2012
Long plan printing 4th November 2011 7th February 2012
B Central 1st December 2011 7th February 2012
Gold investments 25th November 2011 7th February 2012
Bilic homes Not listed on vcat 7th February 2012
Healy & Gold 20th January 2012 28th February 2012
Arch 28th December 2011 28th February 2012
Blue Wolf 22nd December 2011 28th February 2012
Sharp 8th February 2012 20th March 2012
Malina 22nd February 20th March 2012
Bayside building Not on vcat website 20th March 2012
Gillon Not on vcat website 10 April 2012
Blint Not on vcat website 10 April 2012
Malina Not on vcat website 10 April 2012
Malina & business solutions Not on vcat website 1st May 2012
Imperium design 23rd March 2012 1st May 2012
Furman 22 March 1st May 2012
Pascoe 12 april 22nd May 2012
SilverArc Not on vcat website 1st May 2012
Anderson 30th April 2012 12 June 2012
Bail 15th May 2012 3rd July 2012
Perkins 7th May 3rd July 2012
Poath rd 8th May 3rd July 2012
Architecture works 17th May 3rd July 2012
Tefillah 23rd May 24th July 2012
crb 4thJune 24th July 2012
pbbs 6th june 24th July 2012
Booran rd 19th june 24th July 2012
Thermal 21st June 14th August 2012
IKONOMIDIS REID 26th June 14th August  2012
St wise 9th August 4th September 2012
Hta property 2nd August 4th September 2012
Brent Williams 8th August 24th September 2012
Smith 13th August 24th September 2012
Upside dental 4th September 16th October 2012
Vision 3 5th September 16th October 2012
284 Neerim Rd 18th September 13th November 2012
Trubuilt 24th September 13th November 2012
Hamilton 1st October 13th November 2012
Victoria Developments 8th October 13th November 2012
Malina 12 October 2012 27th November 2012
Menory 18th October 2012 27th November 2012
Supreme Property Group 18th October 2012 27th November 2012
Visionary designs 25th October 2012 18th   December 2012
campbell 26th November 2012 5th Feb 2013
sharp 27th November 2012 5th Feb 2013
pegasus 30th November 2012 5th Feb 2013
Carnegie apartments 10th December 2012 5th Feb 2013
Worotnicki 11th December 2012 5th Feb 2013
Linacre 23rd November 2012 26th Feb 2013
Mirmilstein Not listed in vcat 26th Feb 2013
Boston celtics Not listed in vcat 26th Feb 2013

What all this leads to are two possible conclusions – either there is vast incompetence or the failure to provide complete information is deliberate. Readers can make up their own minds. What is certain is that the processes and practices within Glen Eira’s reporting framework is well and truly below par and cannot be relied upon by anyone.

 

March 13, 2013

GESAC & Letters To The Editor

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

gesac

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Waiting for bus service

I remember our mayor and local member promising a bus along East Boundary to run directly to GESAC at the last election.

A regular bus service would reduce the need for the council to build more car parking spaces with ratepayers picking up the tab. It would mean more people could use GESAC. I hope the mayor is lobbying Ms Miller to honour her promises and a bus service will be travelling to GESAC very soon.

Be fair to the retailers

When I was a councillor for the City of Moorabbin (1984 to 1990), I introduced a council policy that council buildings not be allowed to be used/hired for the purpose of becoming retail outlets.

I did this because it is not fair on the ratepaying retailers, who put in all year, to have blow-ins come into your area at prime times, such as Christmas, set up shop in a non-retail building, thus taking away potential customers from the local retailers.

It would seem to me that Glen Eira Council needs to introduce a similar policy. How such places as Caulfield Race Course are allowed to become retail outlets from time to time is beyond me and in fairness to all genuine retailers in Glen Eira, it should not be allowed.

I counted 13 empty shops in Centre Rd, Bentleigh, from Wheatley Rd, to Jasper Rd. Of course, the Bentleigh Sunday Market has a huge impact on the viability of retail shop/businesses in the local area. Many of the “professional” retailers at the Bentleigh Market every Sunday do not come from Glen Eira. So what input do they have to our community? They take but give nothing back. Caulfield Race Course, seems to want to be “all things, to all people”. It is a racecourse on crown land.

Woman of fine principles

Last week I had the great privilege of attending the state funeral for the Honourable Joan Child AO. Ms Child was the first female member of the ALP to be elected to the House of Representatives and later served as Australia’s first female speaker of the House.

A long-time residents of Glen Eira, Ms Child raised five children largely as a single parent after being widowed at 42. Her much discussed campaign headquarters in Grange Rd serves as a reminder of the important role our area has played in progressive political activism.

May favourite saying of hers is “everybody counts or nobody counts” because it is a simple phrase of lofty principles which I hope to uphold in my role as a local councillor. It is why we must accept petitions, seek consultation on important issues and support strong community groups because everybody counts or nobody counts.

Vale Joan Child, life lived in pursuit of fairness.

Cr Mary Delahunty

 

March 12, 2013

From A Resident

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

“How many years does it take for a building to be constructed?  How many times can a planning permit be issued or revised.  Why can’t the planning permit for this property be found on councils planning register? How long does a public footpath have to be unsafe before council does anything?

The multi-storey building in Koornang road which includes 26 units and shops has been under construction for years and years and years.  How can this be?  Surely building permits and planning permits must expire.  There has been so little movement with this development over so many years.

Who owns this property and why are they not forced to finish it and tidy up the site and repair the damage to the footpath?  Has anyone from council ever looked at this site? Does it comply with public safety requirements?

Should we be suspicious about this never ending construction process?  Does the owner have some special privileges that put the site outside public safety compliance?   Questions I can’t answer but maybe someone else knows what is going on and can explain why Carnegie has been blighted by an unfinished construction site for so many years and residents have had to put up with the unsightly mess and the very unsafe footpath.”

photo3

photo

photo2

 

 

March 11, 2013

We Are Biased!

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

Several comments on the GESAC issue have prompted this response. We freely and proudly admit that we are biased. Our bias is always towards open, accountable and transparent government. These features are sadly lacking in Glen Eira Council and nowhere moreso than in the dealings over the development of GESAC and the sporting allocations for the basketball courts. It is certainly time that this Council ‘comes clean’ in disclosing exactly how ratepayer funds are being spent. It is certainly time that fact replaced spin, and that secrecy was put to bed.

Here are the ‘facts’ and questions –

  1. Council continually talks about the $41.2 million CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Figures on total costs (including oufittings, higher purchase agreements, road restructuring, electricity substations, and countless other items) have never been fully itemised, nor added up into one single figure and made public in a manner that clearly shows the precise amount that this has cost.
  2. How many staff are currently employed by Council? 50 or 250 and how much is this costing?
  3. Did council pay any GESAC hired staff throughout the duration of the 5 month delayed opening? How much did this cost?
  4. How on earth can council sign itself up to a 15 year fixed loan on 8.04% and which would now cost $4 million to convert to a fixed and variable rate? The argument of course is that council had the ‘best consultants’ – was there no contrary official legal/financial advice proffered?
  5. How good are these ‘consultants’ when well over $1 million unbudgeted funds have been spent on car park extensions and relocation of playgrounds?
  6. Why has there been no ‘consultation’ with local residents and why oh why were there no traffic studies undertaken prior to the Gardener’s Rd debacle? How safe is this latest encroachment into public space?
  7. Why, if it exists, is the sport allocation policy, and its criteria not in the public domain?
  8. Why were the Pools Steering Committee Meeting minutes a total joke in terms of actually informing the public as to what was going on?
  9. How many GESAC members have not renewed their memberships? How many complaints and/or negative comments has council received regarding entrance prices and general high costs?
  10. How much does daily, weekly and monthly maintenance cost – ie insurance, cleaning, chemicals, heating/cooling etc?
  11. How detailed and frequent were/are reports back to councillors on operations?
  12. Why have councillors not honoured their public statements that an EOI process would be undertaken in 2012 – that is a year following the Warriors allocation?
  13. Why have councillors allowed employees to consistently run the show?
  14. Why are teams for individual sporting grounds no longer on the website?
  15. How many NON-LOCAL teams does Glen Eira house on its sporting fields?
  16. How many locals are members of both the Warriors and McKinnon Basketball Association?
  17. How much has already been spent on lawyers on the ‘liquidated damages’ issue and is Council facing the prospect of a huge pay-out if they lose the case?

There are probably countless other questions that need to be asked. We do not hold out much hope that this lot of councillors will have the nous, or courage to ask them – especially not in public! Again, this stands in stark contrast to what is happening with the Pool in the Mornington Shire. For those interested we ask them to peruse this Notice of Motion (verboten in Glen Eira!) from one of their councillors. It makes for fascinating reading. See: http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/Governance_Agendas/131203ca_add_41_NOM127.pdf

 

March 10, 2013

Would Our Lot Ask These Questions?

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

Councillors have been away for their ‘budget retreat’ recently. No doubt they have been ‘nursed’ along in the process of determining their ‘priorities’ for the budget. They’ve undoubtedly also wrestled with how to pay off GESAC at the fixed rate of 8.04% for the next 15 years. On top of this there’s the $7.1 million superannuation liability that also has to be paid off. Whilst other councils are contemplating paying this in one lump sum to avoid the high interest repayment, we suspect that Glen Eira does not have this option. Imagine borrowing another $4 million or so – that’s if anyone would even lend them this amount! We’re also pretty confident that the question of a top heavy and extremely well paid administration, plus consultants galore, and an unprecedented and constant staff increase with the advent of Newton, would not have figured prominently in these deliberations! It’s therefore really refreshing to read the following from a Monash City Councillor and makes us contemplate the question – would our councillors dare ask these questions? More importantly, would they ever get the answers?

Source: http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/news/bulletin2013/february/councillor.htm

Untitled

 

March 8, 2013

Who Runs The Show?

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

We have commented numerous times on the significance of delegations and the implications of handing over total control to unelected employees. This is not to say that we expect councillors to do the work of 1000 employees – that is an impossibility and nor is it desirable. However, we do expect that the elected representatives of the people fulfil their function in proper oversight and strategic decision making. Recent controversies over sporting allocations are a case in point. Planning delegations are another instance where councillors literally do not know what is going on since most planning decisions are made by these employees with no input from councillors.

The mantra that has continually been used by this administration to intimidate and ward off councillor involvement comes from Section 76E of the Local Government Act. It reads as follows:

76E. Improper direction and improper influence

(1) A Councillor must not improperly direct or improperly influence, or seek to improperly direct or improperly influence, a member of Council staff in the exercise of any power or in the performance of any duty or function by the member.

(2) A Councillor must not direct, or seek to direct, a member of Council staff-

(a)  in the exercise of a delegated power, or the performance of a delegated duty or function of the Council; or

(b)  in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function exercised or performed by the member as an authorised officer under this Act or any other Act; or

(c)  in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function the member exercises or performs in an office or position the member holds under another Act; or

(d)  in relation to advice provided to the Council or a special committee, including advice in a report to the Council or special committee.

(3) This section does not apply to a decision of the Council or a special committee that is made within the powers, duties or functions conferred under this or any other Act.”

In a nutshell we are told in part 3, that Council has the power to decide what is delegated and what is not. In other words councillors have the legal authority to determine every single delegation.

The Act goes on to specify what ‘delegations’ actually are –

Delegations

(1) A Council may by instrument of delegation delegate to a member of its staff any power, duty or function of a Council under this Act or any other Act other than-

(a)  this power of delegation; and

(b)  the power to declare a rate or charge; and

(c)  the power to borrow money; and

(d)  the power to approve any expenditure not contained in a budget approved by the Council; and

(e)  any power, duty or function of the Council under section 223; and

(f)  any prescribed power.

(2) The Chief Executive Officer may by instrument of delegation delegate to a member of the Council staff any power, duty or function of his or her office other than this power of delegation unless subsection (3) applies.

(3) The instrument of delegation to the Chief Executive Officer may empower the Chief Executive Officer to delegate a power, duty or function of the Council other than the power of delegation to a member of the Council staff.

(4) The Council must keep a register of delegations to members of Council staff”.

One other section of the Act, (114) refers to the Local Law, yet there is nothing that we can identify which delegates authority to officers in regard to sporting allocations. It is also high time that planning delegations were totally revamped and processes put in place that ensured councillors had a say in DPC decision making. So, the questions must then become:

  • When will councillors show some backbone and assert their mandated authority?
  • When will this council actually be run by elected representatives rather than employees?
  • When will councillors fulfil their rightful role in representing the interests of residents?
  • When will councillors ensure that open, transparent and accountable government occurs in Glen Eira?
 

March 7, 2013

Residents Are Expendable

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

We’ve featured the Gardener’s Rd conversion into a GESAC car park previously. A comment from a resident’s relative has prompted us to revisit the issue. What is clear is that when it comes to fixing up council’s howlers residents do not matter. They are expendable, irrelevant, and not even worthy of “consulting” with, despite the chaos that is about to descend on their doorsteps. There has been no traffic investigation before the decision was made; no real accounting for why the original design got it so horribly wrong and no problems in suddenly finding $600,000 that is not budgeted for from a council that is cash strapped!

Here’s the comment and some updated photos.

“My parents live on Gardeners Rd, and I grew up there. My grandfather had the house built in 1952, and my Mum has lived there since then, since she was 9 years old. She was given the house by her parents, after she and Dad got married. I and my 4 siblings lived there till we grew up and moved out. I now live in East Bentleigh not far away with my family. We had the best environment as kids. Beautiful Bailey reserve across the road, and “the pools” in summer. I used to take my kids to the pools and the park too, until recently. We were all devastated when we finally lost the 15 year fight to save the pools and GESAC was built. I hate it. I will never go there, and neither will my kids. We call it BALLSAC. We watched in horror as it was built, half the reserve was turned into a carpark, and the playground was removed and replaced with the junk that’s there now. It’s been devastating to see this happen. And now…NOW… they’re carving up the whole street and turning it into a carpark!!! Right in our street, right outside our house. Mum and Dad, and all of us, and all the neighbours, are devastated. Mum and Dad say they are going to sell up and move, out of sadness and disgust. They were never consulted, no-one in Gardeners Rd was. I’d like to ask the councillors, “How would you like this done to YOUR street? Outside YOUR house?”. What a bunch of (MODERATORS: word deleted). I’m so upset but feel powerless to do anything. Is there ANYTHING that can be done? Can we stop it, get an injunction? Does anybody know? We need legal help. I really can’t believe it and I’m so so sad. This is breaking the hearts of so many people and the Council doesn’t give a shit. What has the world come to? If anyone has any ideas or some legal skill please reply.”

P1000052

P1000061P1000060

P1000057

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »