The following is set down for Monday 13th August at VCAT
Room 1.4 – Senior Member R. Davis, Member E. Bensz
10:00 AM B54/2012 Glen Eira CC v Frank Penhalluriack
10:00 AM B114/2012 Glen Eira CC v Frank Penhalluriack
August 11, 2012
Our Rates At Work – All ~$400,000!!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[13] Comments
August 11, 2012
Working For & With The Community?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[2] Comments
590 Orrong Road Update
STONNINGTON TO CHALLENGE VCAT DECISION AT SUPREME COURT
Stonnington Council will appeal the recent VCAT decision on 590 Orrong Road, at the Supreme Court, based on an ‘error of law’.
The Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) had ruled in favour of Lend Lease, in July, granting a permit for a major, controversial development at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale, which drew significant community objection.
Stonnington Mayor, Councillor John Chandler said: “Council’s focus on appealing the VCAT decision is based on legal advice that there is an ‘error of law’ to be pursued, which presents the potential for a different decision to have been reached.
“The legal opinion considers that an error of law could be established, principally based on the tribunal’s express statement that “the number of objections to the proposed development was an irrelevant consideration.”
Cr Chandler said: “It is considered that VCAT failed to give due regard to significant community input and has made a decision that is not supported by the local community or Council. In Council’s view, the decision reflects a lack of consideration of neighbourhood character or respect for local community concerns around appropriate development.
“Council remains committed to seeking an appropriate planning outcome for the site.”
Documentation was lodged on Monday 6 August for Stonnington Council to be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Source: Stonnington Council Media Release. There’s also an article in today’s Age by Jason Dowling. See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/supreme-court-challenge-to-armadale-complex-20120810-24017.html
August 10, 2012
The agenda for Tuesday’s council meeting is out. It’s definitely election, feel good time. This is probably the most innocuous and least informative proposed council meeting of all time. The agenda is chock-a-block full of ‘social issues’ that, predictably, lead nowhere. For example: CCTV placement in Centre Road – this has been discussed, debated for over a year now but the buck passing continues whilst the cameras are probably lying there and rotting. Next there are 2 items on graffiti; homelessness and so on. All are responses to councillors last ditch attempts to parade a social conscience we suspect. Pity that the requests for reports cannot be for something that residents have continually highlighted as ‘major’ – such as planning, traffic, consultation.
What’s far more eye-catching is what is NOT listed for decision or simple information provision that is in keeping with the requirements of transparency and accountability. There’s not one single word about:
- Caulfield Racecourse Centre
- Liquidated damages and GESAC
- No records of assembly (July 3rd was the last record published which means that a meeting probably took place on July 10 – over a month now for this to appear)
August 9, 2012
The Glen Eira Residents’ Assoc. has a new post up which concentrates on the item that featured in both Leader newspapers this week – the sell off of the Alma Club. We think it is definitely worth a read.
It is also worthy of mention that apart from the mandatory figures provided in the Annual Budget on Open Space Contributions received from developers, residents know absolutely nothing about how this money is spent and what percentage is actually used to purchase new open space in the municipality. This is what the levy was set up to do. In Glen Eira however, we would wager that 95% is used to fund ‘facilities’ rather than the acquisition of open space as intended. For a municipality screaming out for open space this is a travesty.
But like everything else in Glen Eira, this is not a new issue. Searching the archives we find that in 2005 the following Request for Report was tabled at council meeting. We maintain that the answers to the questions asked are even more relevant today.
“Crs Marwick/Grossbard
That a report be provided before the next Council Meeting that gives;
1. The amount collected through open space levy categorised into postcodes from May 2003 to the present date, and
2. Details of where and how the levy has been spent.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”
August 9, 2012
This comment has come in from a reader. Given the current shambles of traffic management in Glen Eira, we publish this in the public interest.
“My mind boggles at council’s approach to parking and traffic management. Major road works are underway in Kokarib Road Carnegie, the street behind Koornang Road where Safeway is located. The street is being totally rebuilt and council in their wisdom appear to have removed the angle parking outside Safeway and are replacing it with parallel parking. This will mean the loss of about around 8 or 9 car parking spaces outside the supermarket. These car spaces were nearly always fully occupied. My amazement at this loss of parking in Carnegie follows from seeing the result of roadworks and parking in Glen Huntly near Safeway. They effectively removed up to four car parking spaces on each side of the road near the post office.. I know traffic lights have been installed, but why would you reduce car parking? What benefit is there to shop keepers? What benefit is there to shoppers? What are the benefits at all?”
And we mustn’t forget another important question – what is the cost?
August 7, 2012
Compare & Contrast: VicSmart
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning[4] Comments
No surprises that other councils such as Yarra and Kingston are on the front foot when it comes to speaking their mind, and encouraging residents to participate in feedback to Matthew Guy’s recently announced shakeup of the planning system. Glen Eira on the other hand is once again SILENT. Nothing on the website, nothing in chamber except for a few mumbled sentences, but certainly no indication that Council is inviting public comments and urging residents to have a say. We remind readers that not for the first time has this council put in submissions that were drafted behind closed doors (in secret) and submitted without a formal council resolution – ie VEAC submission, Parking Review & Speed Limit Review. We anticipate that exactly the same thing will happen here – that is, if council even bothers to put in a submission. Our major concern of course is governance and how submissions made in council’s name, and of such importance, do not warrant an agenda item and thus formal and legal endorsement via council resolution. It’s staggering that other councils continually publish their draft submissions. In Glen Eira, everything is secret and a travesty of good governance.
Below we present Yarra Council’s Media Release, then Kingston’s appeal from the Moorabbin Leader.
CITY OF YARRA
Concerns about State Government’s zoning proposals
24 July 2012
In mid-July 2012, the Minister for Planning announced that some changes were to be made to Victoria’s planning zones.
The Government is seeking feedback on the proposed changes by 21 September.
Council encourages community members to look into what is proposed as the changes are likely to have a significant impact in Yarra.
Council staff have undertaken a preliminary assessment of the changes and understand that the changes could result in the following:
- In business and some industrial zoned areas, a supermarket of up to 2000 square metres with an additional 500 square metres of shops could proceed without the need for a planning permit
- In some of the residential zones, small shops, offices and cafes could proceed without the need for a planning permit if they are within 100 metres of a business/commercial zone and if they share the same street frontage.
- Medical centres of up to 250 square metres could proceed without the need for a planning permit in all of the proposed residential zones.
The changes could therefore mean that some developments and changes in land uses could go ahead without public input and Council assessment under the proposed zone provisions. Significant changes could occur in local neighbourhoods without an opportunity for community members to lodge formal objections and without an opportunity for Council to weigh up the issues and decide whether or not to issue a permit.
For more information on the proposed zoning reforms and how you can have a say, visit the Department of Planning and Community Development website.
You may also be interested in the State Government’s intention to prepare a new metropolitan planning strategy. More information on that project is also available on the Department of Planning and Community Development website.
Kingston Council wants comments on planning proposal
KINGSTON Council is urging residents to have their say on the biggest change to planning rules in decades.
The State Government’s proposed new planning zones will have the potential to make a big impact on many Kingston neighbourhoods, as well as green wedge areas.
The neighbourhood residential zone will be the toughest of the new zones.
It will allow councils to restrict the number, height and block size of new homes.
The reforms will also make agricultural operations in green wedge areas easier by getting rid of the need for planning permits.
Public feedback on the proposed changes is open until September 21.
Kingston Mayor John Ronke said the council hoped to include residents’ views in its submission.
Residents must contact the council by August 6.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the neighbourhood residential zone gave planning power back to councils.
But Opposition spokesman Brian Tee said the new rules would protect only Melbourne’s wealthier suburbs from developers.
Jessica Wray
August 7, 2012
Trucks would cause chaos
REGARDING the plans for the recycling plant in Glenhuntly Rd, Carnegie, traffic and noise are already issues in this area given on-road parking, the trams and a level crossing down the road.
Trucks coming and going will cause further traffic congestion and noise, not to mention the dust and pollution local residents and businesses will have to deal with.
I can only imagine how teachers and parents at Glen Huntly Primary will feel about children walking to and from school in the new ‘‘industrial’’ Carnegie. Hopefully, Glen Eira Council will dismiss this proposal immediately.
Given the application to rezone the area and build residential apartments next door, I wonder how the proposals will affect one another. Who wants to buy an apartment next door to a rubbish factory?
Axe the plan immediately
THIS is a ridiculous proposal for the area. The council really needs to stop this without delay.
Imagine the dust and noise
I HAD the misfortune of walking past this place when they were operating without a permit. They dumped a load of old bricks and the noise and dust was unbelievable.
It’s the wrong place
I THINK it’s disgraceful in this day and age that they would allow people’s lives to be affected in such a thoughtless way by toxins, fumes and noise. These places belong in outer industrial zones and not in the middle of residential areas near schools, flats, aged people’s homes and so on.
Hand over the permit
SURELY someone can do something to stop this ridiculous plan. Is this a grab for rates from Glen Eira Council? If the council has no rateable property outside residential areas it should give the planning permit to neighbouring Kingston or Monash, who have plenty of vacant land.
August 5, 2012
Council & The MRC: What Price Safety?
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Service Performance[32] Comments
Council would like residents to believe that ‘safety’ is top of the priority list when it comes to all manner of things. The photos below of Queen’s Avenue reveal a different story:
- the failure of council and the MRC to provide a safe environment via regular pruning of branches
- bike riders who have to veer into the path of cars in order to avoid these branches.
- joggers who would have to veer onto the road because of failure to regularly prune back trees and shrubbery
- It’s quite bizarre that there’s an entry to the Racecourse precinct from Queens Av but you can’t get there safely on foot.
August 2, 2012
The Ethics Of Planning
Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[12] Comments
We raise an issue that has important ethical implications about the interdependence of developers and council planners. Two questions stand out:
- How ‘impartial’ should a council planning officer be when he/she drafts the report to council?
- To what extent should officers’ reports to council be an almost verbatim transcript of the developer’s proposal or, if not verbatim, then a very close paraphrasing of the application?
- To what extent do officers rely completely on developers’ reports and to what extent to they do their own homework and investigations?
We focus here on two documents related to the proposed C80 amendment which seeks to rezone parts of Glen Huntly Rd in order to create a 5 storey, 62 unit dwelling with car parking waiver. Part of this site also featured in this week’s Leader, since there is another application in to create a recycling facility on a section of this proposed rezoned land. (See our previous post: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/pilling-foot-in-mouth-disease/)
We’ve located the Urbis ‘Planning Permit Report’ (104 pages) and compared this with the five and a half page officer report presented to councillors. It’s important to note that of this five and a half pages, more than two are taken up with the usual preliminaries and protocols – ie the processes involved in seeking amendments, and an opening page which outlines the proposal, plus the aerial view of the site. That leaves roughly 3 pages upon which councillors have to make their decision. Hardly adequate we believe! And especially inadequate when justification for recommending the proposal rests on such nebulous language as ‘appropriate’, “consistent”, “adequately cater”, etc. This is the part that is important. The rest of the item consists of architect drawings and a ten page draft Permit Application. We doubt that any councillor actually read this ‘permit’!
We’ve extracted some paragraphs from the Urbis report and compared this with the council planner’s effort. The selective plagiarism should be obvious to everyone and makes us seriously question not only the ethics of this, but also whether council planners by quoting, or paraphrasing so liberally can be seen as impartial adjudicators?
|
THE URBIS REPORT |
COUNCIL OFFICER’S REPORT |
| “The proposed amendment provides opportunities for new economic growth and additional housing supply within the Glen Huntly Activity Centre. The existing N3Z applied to the subject land is designed to encourage the development of industries and associated uses which are becoming increasingly redundant within this area. This is evidenced by the number of vacant premises within the subject land. The rezoning of the land to B2Z allows for a different mix of possible land use outcomes that would be consistent with the Glen Huntly Activity Centre.” | The existing Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) applied to 1232-1258 Glen Huntly Road, supports industries and associated uses, which are becoming increasingly redundant within this area. This is evidenced by the number of vacant premises and nonindustrial uses operating with the area. Also the industrial zoning currently prohibits any residential use/development on the land (other than a caretaker’s dwelling).
Therefore the rezoning has the potential to create opportunities for economic growth and additional housing supply consistent with the Glen Huntly Neighbourhood Centre.
|
| “The majority of the subject land is currently zoned for industrial use. A Site Assessment Report, prepared by Douglas Partners has indicated that a number of the sites have had past and current land uses that are considered to be of medium to high potential for contamination, including 122 Grange Road, Carnegie. Therefore the amendment seeks to implement an Environmental Audit Overlay to the land to ensure that it is suitable for any future sensitive uses. | A chronological land use history of all the sites has been undertaken to identify whether the land is potentially contaminated. Based on these findings it is considered that there is medium to high potential for contamination. Therefore the application of an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to all of the land is required, to ensure that the land is suitable for any sensitive use, such as residential, in the future.
|
| “The Framework Plan identifies the land as being located within a Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC). It is important to note, that the activity centre designation of the Glen Huntly is different from (sic) State Government’s perspective under Melbourne 2030. The B2Z encourages a range of office and associated commercial uses, which complement the core retail uses of the centre and achieve the desired strategic outcomes for an activity centre of this level.” | The rezoning of 122 Grange Road from Residential 1 to Business 2 is considered appropriate and will reflect the long term commercial use that has operated on the land since the 1950s. It will also facilitate future mixed use redevelopment opportunity of this prominent corner location.
It is important to note that there currently is a discrepancy between State and Local Planning Policy in regards to the identification of the Glen Huntly Activity Centre. State Planning Policy identifies Glen Huntly as a Major Activity Centre (MAC). Council’s Local Planning Policy identifies this area as a Neighbourhood Centre.
|
August 2, 2012
How Not To Answer Public Questions!
Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[14] Comments
The following stems from another public question asked at last council meeting. Whilst the original question is admittedly long and not numbered, we have attempted to organise the question and answer along some logical lines. This proved to be a most difficult task given that there is no real connection between what is asked and the response! All the questions relate to parking and traffic management in an upcoming Murrumbeena development.
Why hasn’t the council been pro active knowing that post development there will be traffic and parking issues?
Answer – William Street, Murrumbeena is situated within Council’s Housing Diversity Area. A key reason for this designation is the good access to public transport (including Hughesdale Railway Station) which provides opportunities for residents and their visitors not to use private vehicles. Development is therefore directed towards these areas.
What are councils plans regarding parking and traffic flow in and out of William st knowing that reports are already available.?
Answer – It is acknowledged that some additional vehicle movements will be experienced in William Street as a result of the new development however State Government Planning Guidelines state that reasonable traffic volume targets for local access streets are variously between 1,000 – 3,000 vehicles per day.
Why does the council continue to fail the residents and stakeholders regarding this development?
Answer: Council annually receives many requests for traffic management works but resources for works of this type are finite requiring prioritisation of resources. Resources are directed to those streets in greatest need of attention (not where new rateable homes are provided). Council operates a warrants system whereby streets are prioritised for attention on the basis of objective criteria including vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, reported crashes, peak hour traffic volumes and land uses (activity generators).
Why cant the the council be proactive and involve the residents and stakeholders with and open forum to appease concerns regarding access in and out of William st let alone parking post development?
Answer: Traffic counts will be undertaken following the occupation of the new apartments to determine the number of vehicles using William Street.
It is obvious that there will be traffic issues in William st post development, imagine 50 cars trying to get in and out of Poath rd in peak hour. keeing in mind cars parked in the street.
Answer: It is not appropriate to assume that traffic and parking impacts after construction will be unreasonable.
The resources are available as there is 41 new rateable homes, The information regarding traffic management is available and already supplied.
What is the councils plans to assit and appease the residents and stakeholders concerns regarding traffic and parking in William St Murrumbeena?”
Answer: Once data is collected in William Street, it will be added to this list to determine its priority for traffic management works.
