July 6, 2012

VCAT: Telling It Like It Is!

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

Tuesday night’s ‘discussion’ on the VCAT results for the Rosstown Rd application were full of the usual handwringing by several councillors – Esakoff, Hyams and especially Magee. In the end they all continue to miss the point and to parade themselves as concerned, indignant, and outraged residents lambasting VCAT for all of council’s planning ills. Nothing, but nothing, could be further from the truth. In essence, what the member concluded in the Rosstown Rd judgement was clear and unavoidable – if Council can’t apply their own policy, then VCAT would do it for them! And what is this policy? Major activity centres should have up to 10 storey developments according to the ground rules laid down by council and supported year after year by councillors!!!

We’ve said this time and time again. Glen Eira Council’s Planning Scheme is manna from heaven for developers. Without structure plans, without interim or permanent height limits, without explicit parking precinct plans, activity centres and their residents have been sacrificed on the altar of greed. The arguments that VCAT is totally to blame remains a nonsense. Magee’s claim ‘I hate VCAT’ is even more insulting in light of his and other councillors’ total inaction. We even are left to wonder if:

  • Councillors have ever read the planning scheme?
  • Do they really understand its full implications?
  • How many of them go back and read the actual VCAT decisions?
  • How do they explain the fact that this council has NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED to gain formal height limit restrictions?

Tang now talks of ‘ideology’. Rubbish we say! Ideology which is quite prepared to inflict such pain on residents has no place in any planning scheme. Councillors who continually ignore the root cause of a major problem have no right to claim to represent residents. And councillors who continually trot out the bogey-man excuse of VCAT have no real understanding of what is going on.

We urge all readers to carefully consider what the member actually stated. Below are extracts from his judgement and from other judgements that he quotes. Newton and Akehurst have set the agenda via their planning scheme. This is the future, unless the ‘revolution’ continues!

“The Council conceded that the site is located within the Carnegie Urban Village, identified as a Major Activity Centre, and therefore in a higher order activity centre where Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement encourages significant urban consolidation.

Carnegie is identified as a Major Activity Centre and therefore is identified as an appropriate location to achieve more intense forms of urban consolidation than would be expected in the residential hinterland, and in lower order activity centres.

the central area of these type of urban villages can be expected to attract redevelopment proposals involving at least 5-10 levels of proposed built form, or even possibly more (recognising however that each application must be assessed on its own merits)

It is clear therefore, from the analysis of policy, that more intense building forms are anticipated within these urban villages, increasing in intensity as one draws closer to the core of these centres.

The review site is therefore firmly entrenched near the core of the urban village. This has implications due to the local policy as to the intensity of development that is encouraged on the review site.

I therefore find that both state and local policy encourages an intense form of residential development to be achieved on the review site, which would represent a significant degree of change from the traditional housing stock. Policy does not anticipate that the form and scale of development will respect the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood, as would be expected in a location outside of the activity centre. Instead, in this location developments that are more intense than the surrounding character are firmly encouraged.

Both the Council and Mr Dyer demonstrated that the existing approvals for development within the Carnegie Urban Village currently peak at four storeys. However I do not draw the conclusion urged upon me from that analysis, that four storeys should be, or is likely to be, the ultimate height for future development in this activity centre. More to the point, if indeed this Major Activity Centre were limited to four storeys of development in the future, it would represent a significant under-realisation of the expectations of this centre from both State and Local policy. If Carnegie were to develop to a maximum of four storey forms, it would amount to a failure of policy to achieve the outcomes that it so clearly seeks to achieve.

I therefore do not accept the submissions made that four storeys is an appropriate limit for development generally in the Carnegie Urban Village.

In my view it would be absurd to require development on the review site to transition to the existing single storey housing stock, when that housing stock is encouraged by policy to be replaced by more intense building forms.

Having regard to the whole of policy that is before me, it is therefore entirely clear that a five storey development would be entirely consistent with the strategic objectives for this locale. Indeed, from my analysis I conclude that policy supports a building greater than 5 storeys in height in this location, but a five storey development is what is before me, and it is clear that has policy support.”

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

To make matters worse, below is a photograph (taken earlier this week) of ‘traffic management’ in Rosstown Rd!

 

July 5, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution: #3

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

The third ‘whiff of revolution’ concerns a request for a report originally moved by Lobo and Pilling concerning the flying of the aboriginal flag atop the council building. Paul Burke’s name is attached to the report. The Lobo motion in part, asked for: “What would be the cost for an additional pole and how do we go about achieving this”. Like so many other officer reports, this part was totally ignored and the stock answer of ‘no’ provided.

It was therefore somewhat surprising that the following occurred at Tuesday night’s council meeting.

LOBO:  wanted the item ‘deferred’ until the next council meeting and that ‘further information be provided in relation to costs and options’. Pilling seconded.

Lobo thanked officers but also said that the report ‘outlines mainly the policies’ of council ‘but as I earlier requested it would be great to see’ whether there could be a second pole and its cost.

PILLING: said it was a ‘fair and reasonable ask for more information in line with the original motion’ about costs.

Motion was put and accepted unanimously.

COMMENT

What the catalyst was for this sudden flexing of muscles by Lobo and the other councillors we can only guess at. The item itself is arguably innocuous. But it does represent a definite chastisement of Burke and his colleagues. The great pity, as we have previously remarked, is that this does not happen often enough in council. Shoddy reports that lack detail, do not answer the requests, and basically tell councillors ‘no it can’t be done’ are accepted without blinking. Perhaps in this case political mileage for the upcoming election may have been a factor? Or again, given that a public question had been asked, the issue was up front and in the public domain. We’ve copied the question and the response below.

““Is Council satisfied that having requested a report by a resolution of Council and having specifically asked that a cost be provided for an additional flagpole at this building, that not only were no costs provided in Item 9.7, but that Officers are recommending not to erect a second pole at Glen Eira’s Town Hall? Furthermore is the Glen Eira Council satisfied that when requested by government offices, such as the Department of Premier and Cabinet-Victoria, to fly the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders flag, (for days such as National Sorry Day May 26th and National Reconciliation week 27th May to 3rd June), Council is only able to do so by fixing such flags below a portico? If flying Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander flags is seen “by some members of the community as inappropriate or divisive”, they can be directed to the Premiers Office who has sought Council’s assistance. And finally does this Council consider it is time to review its Policy 1.7 “Australian National Flag” and consider perhaps the erection of a second and third pole to be located at an appropriate site on the ground? This will enable Council to fly the National Flag on number one pole atop the clock in addition to occasionally flying the Aboriginal Flag and Torres Strait Islander Flag or the State of Victoria Flag at grade.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “This item was listed on tonight’s Council Agenda as Item 9.7 so it has not been possible to provide a response prior to the debate. However, you will be able to read Council’s resolution on this matter in the Minutes of the Council Meeting which will be available on Council’s website later this week and which show that this item was deferred and more information was requested. I would, however, point out by way of clarification that the report does not say that flying Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is ‘seen by some members of the community as inappropriate or divisive’. It states that flying those flags may lead to requests from members of the community for Council to fly flags that would be seen in this way.”

 

July 4, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution: #2

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

Before we report on the second ‘whiff of revolution’ regarding sporting allocations, a little background is required. We’ve spoken to quite a few people today trying to get to the bottom of this latest fiasco. Our understanding is: The Ajax Junior Footy Club is about to celebrate 40 years of existence. They wish to play one game at Princes Park in September and also turn this into a ‘community event’ for the wider municipality. It would involve some ground changes with the Caulfield Bears club. They approached the Sports & Rec department of council (Linda Smith who booted the request up to Paul Burke). He refused to accommodate their wishes. There was then the appeal to councillors. We therefore can only assume that the following motion from Tang is a result of this direct lobbying to councillors.

TANG: asked for a report ‘detailing the activities’ that would be put out on September 1st 2012 and ‘terms of allocations and access including times’ that Caulfield Bears have in Koornang Park for 2011 and another cricket club for ‘the same ground’. He also wanted information on any ‘understanding’ that the two clubs had ‘entered into’ and that the report be ‘presented to the next Ordinary Council Meeting’. Pilling seconded, after a somewhat lengthy delay.

Said that his request ‘tries to bring to a head some significant correspondence which council has been receiving….(from both Ajax & Caulfield Bears). The former want ‘the use of an oval at Princes Park’ to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Junior club that ‘already has tenancy at Princes Park’. The Bears meanwhile ‘have been requesting access to the pavilion at Koornang Park’ until midnight on Saturdays to fund raise. Tang said that they claimed that permission had ‘previously been granted’ for such activities. Went on to say that there’s been a reported ‘deal’ between the clubs ‘to leave Princes Park and return to Koornang Park’ and for the seniors to ‘seek an allocation at Princes Park’. Continued that the clubs had changed their ‘representations over time’. Also reported that the Bears were thinking of leaving their ground to meld with their junior club and that they were offered money to ‘upgrade their capital works’….’we need to get to the bottom of it; we need to thrash out these issues’ because ‘I don’t think we should have council facilities available to the highest bidder’. Claimed that they were there for ‘all of the community’. His other reason for requesting the report was that clubs shouldn’t  take matters into their own hands in trying to secure their own best interests since this would ‘affect every activity that they run’. Finished by saying that he hoped that once council got to the bottom of this alleged ‘deal’ that everyone could work productively together. All he wants is to ‘get these facts out into the open’ so that council can ‘deal adequately’ with the requests.

MAGEE:  Said that ‘up until this afternoon’ he didn’t have a problem but now since ‘all this other stuff is coming into it’ (financial offers) it sounds as if Glen Eira is being turned ‘over to the highest bidder’. Didn’t agree with a report but thought that it should be a ‘council investigation’. ‘I’m very very uncomfortable in calling for a report to see what actually happened’. Said that when all this began he would have thought that ‘council would automatically start an enquiry’ or ‘investigation into this’. Worried that ‘money seems to be offered’ and asked ‘how long has this been on the table?’ who is involved or knows about it?  And ‘why have we not been told about this offer?’….’Glen Eira is not open to the highest bidder’. Said that if people wanted an allocation then council has an ‘intricate system’ that helps clubs grow and ‘if they need grounds they get grounds’….’this worries me’….’and I don’t know if calling for a report is the right way’…

LOBO: ‘I’m afraid that the ombudsman has made it clear ……that any allocation of grounds is the responsibility of officers, similar to GESAC allocations’….finished by saying that ‘we need to be very careful and not impinge on the responsibility of the officers’.

ESAKOFF: asked Burke if he thought that the request for the report was ‘interference’?

BURKE: ‘At this stage what I’m hearing is a request for a report’

HYAMS: wanted to ‘clarify’ what Magee said in that as far as he knows no officer, councillor was offered any money. Said that allocations are the responsibility of officers

TANG:  Affirmed Magee’s comments that ‘no, you can’t buy your way into an allocation….it is not uncommon for municipalities to prioritise pavilion upgrades’, where clubs contribute funds. Gave examples of Stonnington and Yarra. In this case the suggestion that ‘capital works upgrade is a Council decision’. Said that when clubs ‘try to get around the allocation system’ and ‘get it wrong’….how does that impact on our community’s enjoyment of facilities’….’what we need to do is get these issues out there….so it can be dealt with quickly…..no allegation …that any allocation went to a club because of financial inducement’. Went on to explain how allocations are done.

MOTION CARRIED WITH LOBO AND MAGEE VOTING AGAINST.

COMMENTS

We find it extraordinary that councillors can get up and claim that ‘you can’t buy your way into an allocation’. We remind readers of the McKinnon Basketball versus the Oakleigh Warriors basketball allocation at GESAC. The minutes of December 14th 2011, written by Paul Burke, state: “There was a difference of $95,000 pa between the two EOIs.” If that’s not buying your way into allocations, then we don’t know what is!

Lobo’s warning about the ombudsman and the role of officers in sporting allocations is also of concern. Either he has absolutely no understanding of Delegations, or his support for Burke has clouded his judgement. Officers act under delegation given to them via council resolution. All it takes to remove the ombudsman from the equation is a simple resolution along the lines of – ‘all sporting allocations are to be made via formal council resolution’.

This is now the second time that the question of allocations has caused angst out in the community. How many more times will decision making on such important issues be left to officers and councillors find out what is going on when it is far too late?

PS: Evidence that many courts are still standing empty at GESAC was serendipitously supplied by today’s Moorabbin Leader with the following story. Readers should also note that Council has been placing full page colour advertisements to “Enrol” for basketball, futsal, etc. in all local papers, plus the Bayside Leader. If the courts were fully booked, then surely such extravagance is not warranted? The story is below. Again simply click on the picture to enlarge.

 

July 3, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution?

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

Three items at tonight’s Council Meeting produced ‘revolutionary’ results by councillors. Now whether this is mere electioneering or genuine, it is definitely a welcome sign. Our only regret is that it has taken nearly 4 years for councillors to assert themselves and to do what they were elected to do!

The issues we are referring to are:

  1. The deferment of Amendment Non-Residential Uses which we analysed several posts ago. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/chip-chip-chipping-away/
  2. The rejection of an officer’s report and the demand for the information in the original request to be included
  3. The strong implied criticism of Paul Burke and the manner in which sporting allocations are done.

It should also be noted that Lipshutz and Forge are on extended leave and that Penhalluriack was absent. Newton was also absent. We will deal only with the first item in this post – the rest will follow in the days ahead.

Amendment C102

Tang moved that this item be deferred. Esakoff seconded.

TANG: Started off that the two amendments on the agenda came out of the Planning Scheme Review and that for the previous Amendment (rezoning) he was ‘satisfied’ with the ‘strategic’ justification and ‘merit’. Although ‘there may be some strategic merit in the suggestions’ for C102 there are also come ‘concerns’ and Council should be ‘prudent’ in ‘trying to address those concerns before proceeding’. Said that a resident had pointed out the ‘blog’ and that the moderators ‘were certainly very dedicated’. Tang went on to state that he was concerned about the ‘accuracy’ of the blog  and ‘balance of the views expressed’ but in a ‘democratic society’ people are permitted to express their viewpoint. He then went on to state that as a ‘community representative’ he was happy to ‘review’ those views  and if they had support to ‘bring them to council’. Said that he wanted to be 100% ‘satisfied’ about the concerns raised ‘in relation to the watering down of restrictions’….’expansion of the breadth of the policy….’and descriptions…..around significant trees’. ‘Council should consider what else it can do….before proceeding’.

ESAKOFF: Agreed but with ‘slightly different reasons’ to Tang. ‘ I would like some more time to work on this….’

LOBO: ‘it is a good idea to defer this’….’many (of the changes) are in favour of a developer’

HYAMS:  Said he understood the ‘aims in redrafting in making it more streamlined….(claimed he hadn’t read the blog) ‘for some time’ and that he’d come to the conclusion himself that ‘there were concerns with this’ such as putting in Housing Diversity as ‘preferred’ locations. Stated that he would be ‘more comfortable with some further consideration’.

TANG: ‘acknowledged’ that Hyams brought up ‘similar concerns’ to his own.  Said that the only reason he mentioned the blog is that ‘it is so often used ….as a vehicle for hate…spreads innuendo….or inaccurately assesses council’s performance….without checking the veracity of the underlying information’. Went on to state that ‘in this instance….the blog has done a good thing’ in comparing past policy with draft suggestions. ‘That’s fine and in fact very useful in the democratic debate’…..’regardless of how councillors have come to the conclusion I just hope they will take on board concerns’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

July 3, 2012

What Is Safety Worth?

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

Community safety is supposed to be the bedrock of many Council policies – especially road and pedestrian safety. That’s why the following Leader  article caught our eye. It says a lot about the gulf between rhetoric, spin, and public relations compared to the realities which confront residents on a daily basis. Council’s response is woeful. When safety is an issue it should not take 3 years for any responsible action. We remind readers that when it was deemed necessary (as an afterthought) to extend the GESAC carpark and relocate a playground, nearly $1 million dollars was found overnight! This tells us plenty about the priorities of this administration.

McKinnon residents’ fears over traffic black spot

3 Jul 12 @  05:05am by Jessica Bennett

MCKINNON residents fear someone will be killed if Glen Eira Council does not act on a traffic black spot.

Andrew, who did not want to include his surname, and neighbours have been rallying council to improve safety at the corner of Lindsay St and Balmoral Ave.

He said there had been at least six incidents over the past eight years with drivers losing control around the sharp, narrow corner and smashing through residents’ fences – which happened again on June 6.

“This one is more serious in that the whole car came off the road, mounted the nature strip and smashed into a tree before driving away,” he said.

Resident Richard Kellaway said locals feared someone would be killed at the corner, a popular route for children walking to school, if council did not act.

In a letter to Andrew, council’s transport planning manager Matthew Harridge said a road safety auditor recommended resurfacing/reconstruction of Lindsay St within three years.

He also said the installation of a high-friction surface would be brought forward in the 2012/13 financial year.

PS: A reader has sent us the following. This Council’s ‘proactivity’ needs comparing with the innovation of others.

 

July 2, 2012

More On The MRC

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[4] Comments 

Admittedly old news, but we’re repeating this given the additional comments by Robertson.

Caulfield high-rise a ‘crass monstrosity’ and ‘future slum’, Danby warns

BY JAN FISHER
02 Jul, 2012 04:00 AM
CAULFIELD racecourse’s controversial high-rise development has been described in Federal Parliament as a ‘‘crass monstrosity’’ and ‘‘a future desolate slum’’.Melbourne Ports MHR Michael Danby said the development, which will include up to 1200 dwellings, would impinge on the nature and identity of Caulfield’s quiet residential streets.

“Frankly this $1 billion so-called Caulfield Village is over the top, does not have enough open space and will eventually turn the area into a desolate slum like the overdeveloped parts of the Gold Coast,” he said.

“As the state member for Albert Park, Martin Foley, has stated, the Victorian Liberal government is seeking to turn parts of our electorate into their version of the tawdry Surfers Paradise.”

The development, on the present car park site, will move a step closer by the end of July when the project builder is chosen.

Three developers have been shortlisted for the project — Lend Lease, Mirvac and joint venturers Beck Property Group and Probuild.

Melbourne Racing Club chief executive Alasdair Robertson did not wish to respond to Mr Danby’s comments but previously said he was pleased with the project’s progress.

“All the proposals are totally consistent with the planning requirements and, most importantly, are taking into account integrating the community, the racecourse, the train station and Monash University,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s a pretty exciting vision.”

The development proposal approved by Planning Minister Matthew Guy included a mix of townhouses and apartments up to 20 storeys, office space, a retail centre including a supermarket and 2000 car spaces.

Mr Robertson did not expect building to begin within the next 12 months. “There are a number of planning processes to complete once we have the final proposal,” he said.

With construction expected to take 10 years, Mr Robertson said resident amenity would be taken into account once the winning bid was announced.

Meanwhile, the development of the racecourse’s infield continues. The works include a water feature, boardwalks, parking, barbecue facilities, exercise equipment and children’s play area and are expected to cost $1.8 million.

When finished the infield would be available to the public from 9.30am to sunset every day except for a handful of race days. The work is expected to be finished in time for the Spring Carnival.

 

June 30, 2012

Snails Move Faster!

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

In August 2010, we had the mock Planning Scheme Review – allegedly based on “extensive consultation” . Funny how resident views via submissions were not published, but such views barely made it into the final “Action Plan”. We thought it would be interesting to go back and review the review. Specifically, we were looking at:

  • What was promised but has not been done in two years time – ie many of the following indicated a completion date of 2010/11. We are now just on two years down the track and there’s no movement at the station. What has been “completed” of course, are all those amendments which would allow more and more residential development!
  • The other completed amendments involve REMOVAL of such important sections as the Development Contributions Levy, Commercial Centres Policy, and this coming week the revamping of the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.
  • We simply have to ask: are these really the most urgent, the most important components of the Planning Scheme? Or are they merely those components which will allow more and more open slather for developers and that’s why they receive priority treatment?

Below we list all the so called Action Items which are still to get a look in. They make for some impressive reading we think!

  • Review Housing and Residential Development Strategy
  • Review Housing Diversity area policy to assess need to encourage three bedroom dwellings
  • Prepare a new streamlined MSS for Council consideration and commence the amendment process
  • Investigate need for new local policies (eg advertising signs, car parking)
  •  Consider parking precinct plans for Activity Centres
  • Do not implement structure plans. Instead, complete an Activity Centres Review to update existing policy frameworks to provide greater direction within Activity Centres (short of Structure Plan detail).
  • Review the Housing Diversity Area policy to provide prescriptive guidance.
  • Pursue approval from State Government to increase the private open space requirement from 60m2 to 80m2 and consider tree protections outlined in the Environmental Sustainability Strategy
  • Prepare a Heritage Strategy for Glen Eira in line with Heritage Victoria requirements
 

June 29, 2012

Chip, Chip, Chipping Away?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[8] Comments 

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature another 2 Planning Scheme Amendments. We will concentrate on the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.

Generally when council introduces an amendment the argument is that it is necessary to fix up zoning issues, or that many of the clauses/phrases/wording in the existing planning scheme is repetitious, not clearly expressed, the legislation has changed, etc. etc. Our analysis of the proposed Non-Residential Uses reveals an entirely different picture. Yes, some changes are due to legislation but many represent nothing more than a watering down of previous conditions and thereby providing far more opportunity for developers to set up in residential areas. We have no problem with the position that amenities such as doctor surgeries, vets, etc. should be located where people live. What we do object to is the chipping away at conditions that help safeguard the existing amenity of residents.

Below we feature a table which presents side by side the current clauses and phrases from the existing Planning Scheme and what is proposed. Many of the changes are indeed subtle – just a word here and there – but the ramifications of these changes are immense. Please note that we have not covered everything – just the main concerns such as location, car parking, and protection of trees.

EXISTING POLICY

PROPOSED   CHANGES
To encourage the development and location of new non-residential uses in areas   which are compatible with the residential nature of the area and comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

 

Proposed development sites abut a main or secondary road and have vehicular access from a service road or side.   Other locations may only be considered where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be compromised.

 

 

The   proposal be located within easy walking distance of public transport.

 

 

Existing dwelling stock be retained in preference to purpose built facilities.

 

 

Sufficient car parking be provided on-site for all users.

 

 

 

 

 

 

he  standard car parking requirement will only be reduced where the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the area is supported with suitable levels of public car  parking and public transport.

 

The retention of any significant trees or landscape features be a high priority in the design.

 

Where  car parking is in the front setback, a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage be provided.

 

 

 

Where car parking areas abut residential dwellings, an adequate landscape buffer (suggested width of 1.5m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

 

Stormwater runoff directed into garden areas to reduce watering and demand on drainage infrastructure.

 To  encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses, in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

 

 

Encourage the   location of non-residential uses in “preferred locations” including main or secondary roads and on corner sites with vehicular access from a service or side road. Consider other locations where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be unreasonably   compromised.

 

DISAPPEARED   and replaced with: Discourage the location of non-residential uses on local streets within Minimal Change Areas   (as defined in Clause 22.08)

 

Retain existing dwelling stock, where practical, and any associated extensions/alterations maintain or enhance its residential character.

 

To ensure that adequate provision is made for on-site vehicle parking, bicycle parking and (where necessary) drop off/pick up areas for all non-residential uses/s in a safe manner.

Car parking facilities be provided to the side or rear or basement of the premises, unless the use is in a preferred location abutting main or secondary roads (as defined in Clause 21.12) or in   a Housing Diversity Area (as defined in Clause 22.07)

 

Reduced on-site car parking must be supported by a Traffic and Parking Report

 

 

Retain any high priority significant trees  or landscape features within the design where possible.

 

Ensure that where car parking is proposed in the front setback (in limited circumstances where the use is in  a preferred location), a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage must be provided.

 

Where car parking areas abut residential dwelling, an adequate landscape buffer (minimum width of 1.0m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

 

 

DISAPPEARED
 

June 28, 2012

Hyams: The Curse Of ‘Uniformity’

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

Hyams does not read our blog anymore. That’s why at last council meeting he was at great pains to try and explain why he is now voting to accept the Community Plan, when several years ago as a private citizen he wrote a submission which argued strongly against the rush to introduce a community plan just months prior to the 2008 council elections. Our viewpoint was, and is, that the circumstances are identical and therefore we wished to see whether consistency of conviction was a higher priority than the political expediency of voting with your mates.

Not only did he move the motion to accept the Plan, but his argument on this issue was basically as follows: It was none other than Cr Penhalluriack who informed him that ‘a blog’ which Penhalluriack ‘claimed not to read’ …’argued that I would be completely inconsistent if I’ took at different position this time. Hyams of course ‘did make that exact same point’ in assemblies, but the ‘will of the majority of councillors’ was to go ahead. He therefore, poor fellow, was faced with the dilemma of ‘stick(ing) my heels in’ and continue arguing, or ‘I could accept that that was the will of the majority’ and help making the plan the best possible. This second option was the one that was ‘more constructive’. He then reminded the gallery that if the next council wasn’t happy, they could change it.

The trouble with such an argument is that residents who haven’t attended meetings will simply look at the minutes and see once again the charade of a united council front – the ‘club’ all operating in unison.  More importantly, residents are therefore deceived as to the actual opinion of each councillor. Would Hyams have said anything if we hadn’t blown his cover? Would he simply have prattled on and left out this attempt to answer our criticism? We believe that his previous positiion would have conveniently been forgotten!

Councillors are elected to represent their community. It is therefore incumbent on them to express an honest and open view and to vote according to their conscience and community views – not what their mates do and not to continually cow tow to the public relations mentality that permeates every action of this council. Consensus is fine; blind uniformity is an abomination as is the failure to present individual views in open council.

 

June 27, 2012

Another Birthday!

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[11] Comments 

Time sure flies! Tomorrow marks the second anniversary of our first post. From those early days we’ve gone from strength to strength – our hits, our average number of comments, our subscribers, and the personal emails we’re receiving are on a continuing steep rise.

Our objectives haven’t changed. We want to “keep the bastards honest” and accountable. We want to counter the perennial spin with facts, and we want to ensure that residents have a place where they can voice their views with the knowledge that those views won’t be ignored or arbitrarily censored. That’s not to say that we expect everyone to agree with us, or each other. But, unlike the mandarins and the all too precious souls that sit on council, we welcome “robust debate”.

In reflecting over the past two years certain things, sadly, stand out like beacons –

  • Transparency & accountability have NOT improved. If anything they have gotten worse. More and more items are decided in secret and there is less and less vital information being disseminated to residents – ie. GESAC and all its problems
  • Poor governance and repeated abuses of meeting procedures continue. It is outrageous that the ‘gang’ can vote in a local law that effectively gags councillors and denies them the opportunity to fully represent their constituents
  • There are still no structure plans, no height limits, no parking precinct plans in Glen Eira and worse – not even the honest attempt to explain to residents why this council is so out of step with the vast majority of other municipalities!
  • C60 stands as the hallmark of councillor/administration failure to adequately protect residents
  • Scandal after scandal continues to plague this council. Resignations, municipal inspections, ombudsman investigations and reports, CEO reappointment cloak and dagger, heritage fiascos and on and on.

We are however very optimistic. In four months time there will be an election. Residents will have the opportunity to ensure that the above failings are rectified with the ousting of the vast majority of incumbents. They have had just on 4 years to ensure progress on all of the above. That they have failed dismally is unquestionable. Residents deserve much better. October is the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and install candidates who will do more than pay hollow lip service to notions of consultation, transparency and accountability.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »