February 5, 2013
From The Leader
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[13] Comments
February 4, 2013
Trees are our most valuable asset. But not in the eyes of this council it would seem. No Tree Register after years and years. No safeguard against moonscaping. Park trees barely rate a mention in Street Tree Policy. No details of regular maintenance such as pruning, watering, tendering and general loving care – in contrast to the set in stone policies of other councils. It is a mentality that would prefer to raze and destroy rather than prune and safeguard. After all, it is a hell of a lot cheaper to get rid of a tree than to prune and nurture it. Even when limbs fall there is no attempt to protect the tree from subsequent disease as the slideshow illustrates. Nor do we get any figures as to what happens with the dollars collected from developers when trees are ripped out for crossovers – how much is collected? how is it spent? how often does council come along and tend this tree since they’ve been paid to look after it?
Then we have the claim year after year that council plants 1600 trees per year. Anything from 500 to 1000 are claimed to be ‘replacement’ trees. What residents are not told is how many of these ‘replacement’ trees require ‘replacement’ after 3 months? 6 months? one year? The streets and parks are littered with new plantings that have died because they have either been planted in the wrong place, or the wrong species has been planted in the wrong place, or there has not been the required attention paid to ensure that all these young trees have a chance of surviving. How much has all this inefficiency cost and how much will it continue to cost? The most important question is – who is to blame?
The slideshow below features individual trees within just one specific park. Multiply this across the entire municipality and we fully expect that half the trees will be gone within a decade.
Send us your photos. The more evidence we accumulate of gross inefficiency, neglect and the inexcusable waste of ratepayers’ money, the greater the chance of improved performance!
Last but not least, we have to point out how other councils treat the issue of safeguarding their natural environments. Bayside for instance has emblazoned on its homepage a call to residents for focus groups, submissions. They include a consultant’s report, a detailed ‘discussion paper’, a balanced and comprehensive online survey, and a draft. What happens in Glen Eira? A paltry two page effort by an unnamed author! and of course, no genuine public consultation on anything! Here’s the Bayside webpage – http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Tree_controls_in_Bayside.htm
February 3, 2013
Trust Me, I’m An Officer!
Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance, GE Transport[4] Comments
Another item on the agenda for Tuesday night is car sharing. As expected, the Akehurst report is another ‘do nothing’ recommendation. We quote:
“Overall, the sharing of cars may be most viable where the availability of car spaces is lowest and the cost of provision highest, such as in the inner city. A significant number of developments have been approved in both City of Melbourne and Port Phillip comprising dwellings with no car spaces. To the extent that this phenomenon appears in Glen Eira, the viability of car sharing may increase.”
However, what irks us even more is the (deliberate?) distortion of the facts and an unholy game of semantics. Akehurst claims: “Only Melbourne and Port Phillip City Councils have policies adopted by council”. Not true, incorrect, and pure bunkum!
After only half an hour of investigation, we have discovered that NUMEROUS OTHER COUNCILS INCLUDE CAR SHARING SCHEMES in their respective Transport Policies. Others such as Stonnington have already run year long trials. Please note – all of these are policies which have gone through the normal channels – ie. public consultation and accepted by full council meetings and subsequent formal resolutions. So, either Akehurst has not done his homework adequately enough, or the claims in this report are far from “clerical errors”!
Here is our evidence taken directly from the respective policies. We have even uploaded the full Moreland policy where car sharing is given major prominence. Below are some extracts from other councils –
Car sharing is one way of limiting car ownership for people with very occasional car use. Such schemes are generally used by people who would not be able to make the journey by public transport, cycling or walking or who don’t use a car frequently enough to merit owning one. Council is supportive of car share schemes as they can reduce the need for numerous car parking spaces and unnecessary car ownership. Council currently provides parking spots and signage to car share companies and in addition encourages support through promotion at Council events and in the Yarra News. (Yarra City – Strategic Transport Statement – 2006)
“Policy 26: Council will support the expansion of car sharing in Maribyrnong
Issues and Justification
The popularity of car sharing schemes across Melbourne has increased significantly in recent years. Car sharing allows registered members to book and rent a ‘pool’ car for, generally, short term usage, typically ranging from a few hours to a day or two. Car sharing is most effective in mixed-use areas with good public transport, cycling and pedestrian networks, which make it possible for residents and workers to undertake most of their daily activities without a car, while offering the flexibility of car usage for special occasions. Car sharing can also be effective as an alternative to owning a second car…….
Actions
Action 26.1: Support the provision of at least one car sharing space to be installed on-street adjacent to all new high density residential and commercial developments.
Action 26.2: Exempt car sharing vehicles from parking fees in all Council-controlled off-street carparks.
Action 26.3: Explore mechanisms to extend parking privileges to car sharing vehicles (similar to vehicles displaying Resident Parking Scheme permits) – in selected areas throughout the municipality in support of short-term parking access while avoiding unintended consequences such as long-term commuter parking.
Action 26.4: Explore mechanisms to provide car share parking spaces (in addition to car share ‘pods’) in highly sought after locations as an incentive to car share users. These parking spaces would not be associated with a particular parking management policy – council resolvedvehicle or car share company, but could only be used by car share vehicles. (page 84)
(http://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/Files/Maribyrnong_Integrated_Transport_Strategy_2012.pdf)
February 1, 2013
More Of The Same – Only 10X Worse!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance[21] Comments
In our opinion, many of the items set down for next Tuesday night’s council meeting are nothing short of disastrous for residents. We apologise for the length of this post, but the issues are extremely important.
Item: 483-493 Glen Huntly Rd
Application is for 8 storeys; 4 shops, 57 dwellings and car parking and loading bay waiver. Ron Torres recommends acceptance of application with some minor conditions thrown in. We do not really have to say anything but let the report itself tell the full story. Here are the relevant extracts:
Taking up opportunities for more intense development in the appropriate locations gives Council greater legitimacy and credibility in limiting development in Minimal Change Areas. In other words, it’s okay to sacrifice 20% of Glen Eira without ever defining what “intense development” really means!
It is considered the building itself is of a high quality architectural design that compliments the rhythm of the narrow Glen Huntly Road shop fronts and will make a positive contribution to the emerging character of the Urban Village. In this context, it is considered the proposed building at a height of 8 sotreys is consistent with the policy expectation for this site. Here is it in black and white! 8 storeys is the benchmark for this council! Beware the Planning Zone Reforms! We could also be quite pedantic and wonder what on earth ‘rhythm’ has got to do with ‘planning law’ as so constantly noted by Lipshutz, Pilling, Hyams. How exactly ‘rhythm’ is quantified is of course another question. We suppose it just sounds good and will surely now feature regularly in future officer reports.
The report however gets even better! –It is proposed to provide 66 on site car spaces within 3 levels of basement car parking. The planning scheme requires 82 car parking spaces. Torres goes on with this feeble rationalisation – In this case, a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement is justified. If sustainable transport modes are to be promoted, then a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement should be encouraged. It is considered appropriate to provide a modest level of visitor parking. However providing additional on-site parking for visitors will only encourage more vehicle traffic to an area which anecdotally has issues with traffic. It is also noted that a visitor parking rate of 1 space per 10 dwelling (as proposed in this case) has been supported previously in activity centre locations. The logic is incredible here. Visitor parking will encourage more cars – but allowing 8 storeys and countless dwellings presumably won’t – or at least this isn’t mentioned. Readers should also note the reference to ‘anecdotal’. Pity that there is not one scrap of data in any part of this report to substantiate any of the claims made!
But the best is yet to come! The Transport Department had this to say – Providing less than half the required number of residential visitor spaces on the site is not appropriate. A minimum of 9 on-site visitor car spaces is recommended.
Urban Design then has this to say: There are several trees on the property to the north which have the potential to be impacted upon by the proposed development. The size and extent of basement will mean there are no realistic opportunities for tree planting and the concept landscape plan is not supported. So, here we have traffic and urban design saying ‘nay’ – yet the proposal gets through. Residents should be asking exactly how many ticks in the boxes does it take before a proposal is rejected? What is the priority listing for all these boxes? For example: is parking given greater weighting than landscaping or natural light?
Then there’s this further icing on the cake: The existing street tree can be removed at the permit holder’s expense. So much for a ‘green, gregarious garden city’!!!!
Item 687-689 Glen Huntly Rd.
The application was for a 4 storey, 29 dwellings, 2 offices, and a reduction in visitor car parking. Recommendation was to accept, but with 28 dwellings! There’s also an interface with Minimal Change Area. The report notes that the property has a permit for 3 storeys and 19 dwellings + 2 offices. This application is to increase dwellings and height. The ‘reason’ not to grant the full 29 dwellings but rather 28 is: ….it is recommended that Units 401 and 402 on the third floor be consolidated to form one 3 bedroom dwelling, thereby contributing to housing diversity and reducing bulk/mass impacts. Wow! Does this mean that out of 29/28 units ONLY ONE will be a 3 bedroom outfit? That is really encouraging ‘housing diversity’ to cater for families, etc.!
On car parking we have this gem: It is proposed to provide 33 car spaces in the basement. This satisfies the planning scheme for the dwellings and offices but not for visitor parking. Only one visitor space is proposed whilst the planning scheme asks for five. Council’s Transport Planning Department has suggested that at least 3 on-site car spaces should be provided for visitors.
Item 6 James Street, Caulfield South.
The application is for 3 storeys and 10 dwellings. Interestingly, the site is labelled as South Caulfield. It is Glen Huntly! Officer’s recommendation is for 9 units. A notation states: In 2011, an application was refused which proposed a two storey building with seven dwellings. It was found to be an overdevelopment of the site…..The current proposal is for ten dwellings. It is however, not an overdevelopment like the previous proposal. Reasons given are that car parking is now ‘adequate’ and site coverage has ‘fallen from 59% to 46%.’
What’s particularly galling is the argument that is then trotted out: …the proposal is more akin to the characteristics of the emerging character of the area. Recently approved, at the direction of VCAT, is a 27 dwelling, four storey development at 18-20 Etna Street, Glen Huntly, located two properties east from the subject site. Once again, the folly of lack of height limits is exposed. Now the argument becomes because the precedent is already there so further development is okay.
One other very important aspect of this application concerns the destruction of a liquidamber. We highlight this aspect given the spin that is the item on Significant Tree Register also in the agenda. The comment reads: There is a tree located at the rear of the site (Liquidambar) that is proposed to be removed. Its removal is considered acceptable given the site’s location in a Housing Diversity area where this type of development is envisaged and where replacement trees can provide for more appropriate landscaping. Housing Diversity Areas are again sacrificed. They do not need trees, open space, or normal amenities. Exactly what “appropriate landscaping’ means is again not explained.
ITEM TREE PROTECTION
We remind readers that the issue of a Significant Tree Register has been rearing its ugly head since at least 2003. That’s ten years of doing absolutely nothing. The unnamed officer’s report on this issue is another piece of spin, dissembling, and the failure to adequately inform. Given the comments from the James St. application the irony of the comments found in this report should be obvious to all readers. We quote:
The normal processing of town planning applications provides on going protection of over 200 valued existing trees and the planning of over 1,000 future canopy trees each year.
Where values trees are identified, the town planning assessment will regularly incorporate permit conditions which require protection during construction and a tree management condition to ensure the ongoing retention of the tree/s. Where a tree to be retained is near a proposed building, further conditions are applied for special foundations which do not disturb or damage the root system. Similarly, the proposed building is protected from future damage from the tree roots. Such foundations often add thousands of dollars to construction costs. Wonderful isn’t it? Who identifies ‘valuable trees’? Certainly not residents or councillors! How many trees have been allowed to be cut down (as with James St) in order to squeeze more units onto a block? How well ‘safeguarded’ are such trees by the planning processes?
We’re then told that there are penalties for removal of trees without a permit. We wonder how many prosecutions this council has carried out in the past decade?
After a page and a half of self praise, the report finally gets to the nitty gritty, with:
Approaches to supplement existing levels of tree protection include the following.
Introduce a Local Law to require a permit to remove any tree of more than a specified size, usually measured by circumference of the trunk. This involves property owners applying for a permit, paying a fee, possibly requiring a report by an arborist, with the Council determining whether to grant the permit or not. Many Councils have this approach.
Introduce a Classified Tree Register where there is a Local Law requiring a permit but only for those high quality trees which Council has included in the Register.
That’s it as far as details go. Nothing about resident rights to object to street tree removal; nothing about private versus public property; nothing about giving residents the opportunity to have input into ‘valued’ trees; nothing to restrain this council from chopping down tree after tree without producing a qualified arborist’s report.
There are many other items in this agenda which deserve to be severely criticised. We will do this in the days ahead.
PS: Just for the heck of it, here’s the 6 James St. proposed development PLUS THE ‘INSIGNIFICANT TREE’ that’s about to get the chop!
January 30, 2013
Traffic, Parking & Lack Of Planning!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[7] Comments
The latest Census figures literally make a mockery of both the State Government’s, but more importantly, council’s pronouncements. The over-riding rhetoric has been that people who live near railways, major transport routes (in essence, Housing Diversity Areas) will not require as many cars. This myth, and its associated problems, has been further compounded by council’s failure to:
- Implement Parking Precinct Plans across the municipality, and especially in Activity zones even though the planning scheme still contains clauses that promise to do this. We’re still waiting!
- Council continually waives car parking requirements in development after development. The argument is that residents will avail themselves of public transport!
- There is no home-grown analysis of the impact of parking in adjacent streets or the creation of ever increasing ‘rat-runs’.
- Potential, albeit partial ‘solutions’ such as car share are pooh-poohed by administrators and put on hold
- Residential parking permits are handed out almost willy-nilly with no thought, or follow up, of what happens in all those ‘adjacent’ streets
- We also remind readers that there was the promise to ‘incorporate’ all the latest Census figures into the Community Plan once they were available. The community plan is coming up for review. We won’t hold our breaths however for any radical revisions!
The following statistics taken from the VicRoads Transport Portal (http://www1.transport.vic.gov.au/VTSP/homepage.html) should be carefully assessed by all residents. They reveal what we already know – a steadily worsening situation!
- We learn that there are about 48,500 cars in Glen Eira. Of the 131,000 estimated population, just on 30,000 are 19 years or younger. That means there is close to one car in Glen Eira for just about every 2 people eligible to drive.
- We also learn that the numbers of people driving to work has increased by 2,200 since the 2006 census. Bike riding has only gone up by 170 individuals.
The ramifications of these figures must be addressed. The problems associated with parking and general traffic management have been brought up again and again by residents. Yet Council, true to form, has done practically nothing except produce ‘policies’ that are good on rhetoric and spin, but totally deficient in action, planning, and real analysis that should form the bedrock of all action plans. Real vision and long term planning simply does not exist.
Here are the stats. Click on each image to enlarge.
January 30, 2013
The Accidental Vegie Garden
Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance, Miscellaneous[8] Comments
For nigh on a decade now, residents have been clamouring for this council to establish neighbourhood vegie gardens. Of course, all has fallen on deaf ears and nothing has been done. Well now we wish to introduce Council’s ‘accidental vegie patch’.
Following the desecration of the Elster Creek Trail, where vast stretches of green open space were turned into a stinking mess via the insane application of “commercial mulch”, locals have been having a grand time. Even with the regular poisoning of everything in sight, nature refuses to give up the ghost and insists on sticking her head up time and time again. But with new additions! Glen Eira is suddenly home to tomatoes, roses, pumpkins, zucchini, and other assorted vegies and plants. For this we have to thank the so called “commercial” mulch that was undoubtedly put down at great expense. So in spite of all its efforts to resist the start of a community vegie garden, nature has taken the matter out of council’s hands.
The tomatoes taste great!
January 29, 2013
More Open Space?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
Refreshing Park News
The Fixer gets the right fix for popular plaza
Andrea Kellett
ELSTERWICK plaza has finally received the green light to start its transformation from eyesore to community gateway.
After the Leader’s The Fixer column publicised the problem (“Park goes from lovely to eyesore, October 22, 2012), community leaders called for a revamp of the prime land next to the railway station, backed by Transport Minister Terry Mulder.
Caulfield state MP David Southwick has now negotiated a 20 to 25 year lease from the landowner, railway authority VicTrack.
It is conditional on a commitment from Glen Eira Council to “invest substantially in the improvement, beautification and upgrade of the park”, he said.
We’ve secured this as public open space,” Mr Southwick said. “This is a prime piece of real estate and we want it to be a community asset.
The council has sought a lengthy lease from VicTrack, which would justify a costly revamp, and has been trying to change its year-by-year lease arrangement since 2007.
Mayor Jamie Hyams said the council had not wanted to invest ratepayers’ money without a long lease. He, Mr Southwick, traders and residents agree the plaza and historic rifle range are dilapidated, unsafe and overdue for a facelift.
“Council has been pushing for this for a long time,” Cr Hyams said. “I would hope funding for the park would be in the next council budget so works could be carried out in the next financial year.”
Elsternwick Main Street Committee chairman Brent Howard said he was delighted. “We want to encourage as many people as possible to come and the more vibrant it is, the better retailers will do,” Mr Howard said.
Camden Ward Cr Mary Delahunty described the outcome as a “victory for the people of Elsternwick”.
January 26, 2013
Is The Game Rigged?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning[10] Comments
This post is simply pointing out some ostensible patterns or trends and is positing some questions for residents’ consideration.
Over the years there have been many complaints about the running of the so called ‘planning conferences’ – ie. how objectors are not given the opportunity to ask the developer questions (that’s when they deign to even show up as with the centre of the racecourse debacle); how the planner’s final report is only available on the Friday before the council meeting, and so forth. The stated objective is that these planning conferences function as opportunities for dialogue and the potential resolution of differences. We wonder how much dialogue and subsequent compromise ever eventuates – especially when no real reports or ‘satisfaction survey’ results are made public.
Related to these conferences is the question of who chairs them. Should only local councillors chair such meetings if the application relates to their ward? Or should everyone be sent throughout the municipality since, as Lipshutz so often delights in telling people, he doesn’t just represent Camden Ward, but all of Glen Eira! It’s very strange then, that the vast majority of his chairmanship just happened to involve applications that were located in Camden!
Next is the NUMBER of planning conferences chaired by the various councillors, and the nature of the respective applications. Our analysis tells us that when the stakes are pretty big (such as major high rise developments, or important amendments such as C87, or applications that have garnered large numbers of objections) then the ‘big guns’ – ie Hyams, Lipshutz and early on, Magee – are dragooned into action. What also stands out is that throughout the duration of the last council, Penhalluriack DID NOT CHAIR ONE PLANNING CONFERENCE! Why, we wonder?
Here are some stats outlining the number of times each councillor chaired a meeting. We’ve omitted Staikos and Whiteside.
Hyams – 28
Lipshutz – 23
Magee – 25
Esakoff – 14
Tang – 5
Pilling – 19
Lobo – 7
Forge – 8
When we start looking at the individual councillor and the individual application, then there is definitely a trend. For example: on the few times that Lipshutz ventured out of his electorate it was to chair pretty contentious development proposals, that either drew heaps of objections or, were ‘unusual’. (ie the sell off of Station St to the Port Phillip Housing Association for $3.1m; Mavho St with stacks of objections). Magee was the ‘jack of all trades’, especially early when he was presumably ‘one of the boys’ – so he also got a few major projects. Then there’s our erstwhile Mayor. He’s indispensible, peripatetic, and seemingly most available – especially for many of the really top notch and contentious proposals (C87 Amendment; 10 storeys in Glen Huntly Rd.). Most of the other councillors were left with run-of-the-mill stuff such as double storey applications in minimal change areas. The over-riding impression is that the gang, including Pilling of recent times, generally get the really important proposals and the rest of the councillors all the left-overs.
Some other questions to consider:
- Are these conferences allocated or do councillors ‘volunteer’?
- If allocated, what is the rationale for picking which councillor chairs each meeting? (availability assumed)
- And the $64 question? How many ‘discussions’ has the chair already had with the developer prior to the conference as opposed to the number of discussions had with objectors? And as revealed at a recent council meeting with Lipshutz and his ‘volunteer’ in handing out how to vote cards, what about the potential for conflict of interest?
All in all, like everything else to do with planning, there is plenty of opportunity for manipulation and rigging the game – especially when there’s the oft repeated ‘threat’ of closing the meeting if too many people ask too many embarrassing questions!
January 24, 2013
Does Council Support Residents Or Developers?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[20] Comments
First some background to refresh people’s memory. An application for a 3 storey, 10 unit development on Mavho St., Bentleigh was rejected unanimously by all councillors in March 2012. Planning officers had recommended a permit. The earlier planning conference was severely criticised by residents. Lipshutz was accused of gagging residents (See our earlier post: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/tansparency-accountability-who-do-councillors-really-represent/). Objections then ensued from the applicant and residents and the case was set down for a VCAT hearing this Monday and Tuesday (21st & 22nd January).
We present below an email exchange between one of the objectors and Hyams. Names are deleted.
Dear Jamie & Oscar
It is with great disappointment that I write to you both about the recent correspondence from the Council’s planning office (received today) (Thursday 17th January). Attached is the Planning departments proposal for VCAT hearing which arrived today! The hearing is on the 21st & 22nd of Jan. Your Planning department is putting forward a proposal for 10 apartments! Were you aware of this situation? Did you follow up with the so called planning experts as to how they planned to stand their ground at defending the councils decision to reject the development? I fully understand that:
“While Council has prepared suggested conditions in accordance with this VCAT requirement, it is emphasised that Council continues to oppose the proposal.”
Please explain why the residents, that have so vehemently rejected this entire development, not been privy to this compromised proposal by your planning department till the last minute? Is this draft proposal a joke? It beggars belief that the person representing the Council (and by default, the residents of the area) is committed to the decision that the Mayor and all Councillors took in the Chambers.
You will recall that the meeting of the erstwhile Councillors (elected representatives of the residents of Glen Eira) had rejected the development outright. Is the representation at VCAT not to defend the councils decision on the day? The rather late receipt of this draft simply reinforces belief that the developers are in cahoots with the planning department and the residents are mere fools, misled by those in power. Let me assure you that as residents we oppose this draft. We are left with no time to question anyone in the planning department.
We are shocked that the amendment has been sent to all of us a day before the hearing is set? A clever ploy by the Council’s planning department to avoid any discussion on the matter. You leave us with no time to question the draft.
Jamie, in all you correspondence to me, you had assured me that the Council representative at VCAT would be an independent person. It seems otherwise. Whilst the Council would not be using a qualified legal representative, it would have an expert, independent planning authority. Correspondence received today leaves us with little hope and confidence.
The representation should be without FAVOUR or FEAR. This hearing/case will set a precedent for all of Bentleigh and it should be monitored and dealt with extreme due diligence. Given the timing of this draft proposal (attached above) by the council, perhaps, you are happy for the develpers to PLUNDER the residential streets of not just Bentleigh, but all of Glen Eira. The preparation for the VCAT hearing should focus on complete rejection and NOT COMPROMISE in favour of the developer.
Please treat this as a matter or urgency and reply ASAP.
Thank you
Regards
Xxxxx
++++++++++
Dear xxxx
Thank you for your email. I understand your concern as to how this looks. However, it is a requirement of VCAT that whenever Council refuses an application, it must still draw up a set of conditions to assist VCAT. This is the requirement set out in Practice Note PNEP1, referred to in the covering letter. It is a legal requirement, but does not in any way mean that Council will not be defending its decision to refuse the application.
Council’s representative at the hearing will be independent of Council’s planning department, as you mentioned I had previously advised you. We will be using a well-regarded private planning consultant named Andrew Crack.
If you have any further enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Good luck with the hearing.
Regards,
Jamie
+++++++++
Dear Jamie
I am certain that you do not understand my concerns. The key issue has not been answered by you. Why have the concerned residents been informed of the proposed, back up draft plan at the nth hour? The planners in all their arrogance have assumed that what they recommend will suit the residents. This development, if approved, will have an adverse impact on lot of people. The correct process is that the objecting parties have to be kept in the loop about all suggested changes to the plans.
I request you to explain why we have received the draft suggestions a day before the hearing?
+++++++
Dear xxxxx,
I agree that the short notice given was inappropriate. The VCAT requirement is that such notices are sent out 5 business days prior to the hearing. In this case, the notices were sent out later than that. I am informed that this was a rare lapse, and was because the relevant officers were just returning from their annual leave.
However, the important point is that, as I mentioned, Council will be defending the refusal, not advocating for the draft plan.
Regards,
Jamie
+++++++++
Dear Jamie
Once again you defend the planning departments shortcomings. The VCAT requirement gives you more than 5 days. I have a copy of the PNEP. A rare lapse? I had made it very clear to you in my email in December that given the timing of this hearing and the holiday season, particular attention needs to be paid to this case. I had pre empted the planning departments lack of diligence and bought the timing to your attention. Lo and behold! You come back to me saying the employee concerned was on annual leave!! This once again reflects on the inefficiencies of your planning department and further consolidates our belief about how the departments favour the developers.
What your planning departments treats with such non chalance is blood, sweat and tears for the residents of Glen Eira. We need some answers and someone needs to be made accountable.
Thank you
COMMENT
The hearing took place as scheduled. We have been told that the ‘expert’ consultant spent most of his time holding up photographs of ‘high’ buildings already located in the street! A strange way to argue a case AGAINST DEVELOPMENT we suggest! The question thus becomes:
- Why is council spending ratepayers’ money on consultants if this is the best they can do, or the best they are ‘allowed’ to do?
- How can a planning department get things so wrong so often? Even if staff take leave, surely they must have some procedures in place to ensure that all runs smoothly over the xmas holidays? Further, they MUST know what cases are coming up and require attention? Or is it simply that no-one cares – after all these are only residents?
- Whilst we commented from the start that we believed the councillor vote was largely due to an election year and the volume of loud protest, it still does not excuse the failure of officers to actively, diligently and professionally support councillors’ decision and residents.
- The usual excuse will be that the planning department should enforce planning law (ie the planning scheme). Councillors will (pretend?) outrage no doubt and blame VCAT when the decision is handed down. What they have never done is to demand a total and full review of the planning scheme. What they have never done is ask for detailed justification as to how and why a house that sits 100 metres on one side of a street is in a Housing Diversity area, and a house that sits directly opposite is in Minimal Change.
- Okotel recently asked for a report on the information provided to residents and applicants. The result was a glowing endorsement by her and other councillors. It’s time that the following happened:
- Delegatory authority to officers on planning be cut back substantially and councillors have ‘call in options’
- Councillors be informed BEFOREHAND and IN DETAIL of any DPC scheduled meetings. We believe that currently they often do not even know what is up for decision.
- Councillors attend DPC meetings or this officer love-in be disbanded and a formal special committee instituted to consider planning applications as happens in so many other councils.
- A total review is required of notification processes
- Finally, we’ve uploaded the Practice Note (here) and invite residents to compare the wording of Hyams’ email with what the Practice Note actually says!
January 21, 2013
Lobo’s Little Blooper!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance[66] Comments
Boats on streets ‘unreasonable’ in Glen Eira
- Troels Sommerville, Moorabbin Leader
- January 20, 2013 12:00AM
BOATS, campers and trailers are clogging up roads and taking up parking spaces in Glen Eira, Deputy Mayor Oscar Lobo says.
Boats, trailers and campers are allowed to park indefinitely in carparks that do not have time restrictions, as long as they carry a valid registration and are shorter than 7.5m.
But Cr Lobo said it was time for change, as carparks had become harder and harder to come by in the city.
He said the vehicles were not only detracting from residents’ access but were taking up an “unreasonable” amount of space.
He has written to local Bentleigh Liberal MP Elizabeth Miller and hopes she will be able to push something at state level.
Ms Miller said the deputy Mayor had been left “red-faced” over his request.
“Councils already have existing powers under the Local Government Act 1989 to move vehicles that pose an obstruction on local roads,” Ms Miller said.
“Neighbouring councils have used these powers and I encourage the deputy Mayor to read the relevant provisions in the Act and enforce them if necessary.”
PS: Here’s some more mumbo-jumbo from this administration! At the last council meeting the ‘minutes’ of the Local Law advisory committee were tabled. It featured a section on caravans –
“Cars and caravans parking in the street
Council had been requested to consider the issue of regulating the length of time cars and caravans could be parked on roads in the municipality. Jeff Akehurst advised that State laws regulated the parking of cars and caravans on roads, and provided the vehicle was registered, there was no restriction of time limits on parking. Accordingly Council was unable to make a Local Law in respect of this matter.
The Committee noted the advice and agreed that the matter could not be taken further.”
Apart from what the Local Government Act states, and the fact that Akehurst is only referring to ‘length of time’, there are many, many avenues that Council could pursue if it really wanted to – and, they could also be income producing! For example, Boroondara in its Amenity Local Law of 2012, does not seem to have any problem with incorporating the following clauses:
A person must not allow any vehicle or trailer whether or not registered with VicRoads or equivalent interstate road authorities, to be placed or remain on any road if the placement of such vehicle or trailer would cause a danger, hazard or substantially interfere with another vehicle or any person’s use of the road, or obstruct the clear view of traffic controls by a person on the road or adjacent land.
Penalty: 5 Penalty Units (Page 15)
A person must not, without a permit or licence: occupy or put anything on Council-controlled land, including but not limited to, boats, cars, trailers, caravans; (page 16)
Moreland and countless other councils also have residential parking permit schemes that will not provide permits for trailers, boats, caravans etc. Glen Eira’s parking schemes in contrast, say nothing about requiring a permit for such vehicles in residential streets! When everything is done on an ad hoc basis and policies aren’t reviewed for decades, then this is the inevitable result!
