June 18, 2012

Budget: Special Council Meeting

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[8] Comments 

Buried on page 23 of last week’s Glen Eira Leader is the mandatory public notification of the Special Council Meeting to consider the budget and Council Plan. With typical efficiency, no such announcement features on Council’s website!

We again highlight the following low lights of this budget:

  • Another 6.5% increase in rates plus exorbitant increases to rubbish collections and child care fees
  • More and more staff so that well over 60% of rate revenue goes to paying staff
  • More and more ‘contractors’ so that the staffing bill is astronomical – over $81,000,000 in the coming year
  • The continuing decline in council subsidies for Pensioner Rebates and real expenditure on drains, traffic management and footpaths/roads
  • Millions upon millions spent on pavilions (Duncan McKinnon), regrassing ovals, concrete plinthing, and toilets barely 10 years old. We simply ask whether ‘refurbishing’ or ‘redevelopment’ could not replace the total demolition of some of these pavilions?

At last council meeting Tang spoke of the necessity of ‘prioritising’ and looking at council’s ‘ideology’. We note that Tang has been in council since 2006 as has Lipshutz. Hyams was first elected in 2003, and again in 2008. Esakoff has been a constant since 2003. All the rest have had basically 4 years to figure out and change ‘ideology’ and to do some real ‘prioritising’. Fiddling with the budget as happened last year is like moving deck chairs on the Titanic. It just meant a slight hiccup and delay in the grand plan. The old goals, objectives, and agendas are still in place. The ‘ideology’ that these goals represent (ie more development, more taj mahals, more secrecy, and more extravagances) are the antithesis of the views expressed by residents. These councillors either will not, or cannot change the ‘ideology’. Only the October elections can achieve this.

PS: As an afterthought, the most pertinent question to consider would be: what have these councillors actually achieved in nearly 4 years? Our ‘answer’ has to be ‘not much’. For example:

  • GESAC running over time and losing money hand over fist
  • The failure to carefully supervise Paul Burke in his allocation of the basketball courts to the warriors and then backing him to the hilt and Lipshutz’s claim that councillors should not be ‘hand on’!
  • Booran Rd Reservoir – empty and not resourced for another 4 years at least despite Glen Eira having the lowest open space ratio per capita in the state
  • Centre of the Racecourse – a cave-in and not a word about anything for nearly a year
  • C60 – a total cave in to the MRC by the gang of four
  • Carbon reduction figures – still non-existent after years and years of talking about it
  • Community consultation still only given lip service to
  • Transparency and accountability – non existent
  • Secrecy on the rise with councillors continually gagged
  • A planning scheme that hands carte blanche to developers
  • The reappointment of Newton
  • Categorised as a ‘ high risk’ council for the first time
  • Hocked to the gills for the first time
  • Advisory committees that remain ‘closed shops’ – no published agendas; paltry minutes and bar one committee – no community reps.
  • No Notice of Motion; no recission provision; agenda set completely by CEO
  • Continual doctoring of minutes
  • Expenditure on pavilions that remain commercial failures
  • Failure to adequately address traffic and parking
  • Failure to address flooding potential
  • Scandal after scandal – Municipal inspectors, heritage farce, ombudsman inquiries, lawyers on easy street, etc.
 

June 16, 2012

The Bastardry Continues!

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

Below is an email which the journalist Keith Moor sent to Cr Penhalluriack prior to his article on the recent boarding house fines. We cite this email in full – apart from the journalist’s phone number.

“Dear Mr Penhalluriack, I am writing an article for tomorrow’s Herald Sun about an illegal backpacker hostel which is being run from 339 Hawthorn Rd and which the Glen Eira Council is attempting to have shut down or brought up to the fire safety standards required of a rooming house.

I have copies of letters written by the council to the property owner. I have done a property search on it and found the company K.I.Penhalluriack owns the property. I have done a company search and found you and your wife are the directors of that company.

Can you please call me at work on xxxxx so I can get some comment from you to include in the article.

Cheers

Keith Moor”

COMMENT:

  • Whether or not Moor contacted Council first, or whether Council contacted Moor over this issue palls into insignificance with the admission that Moor has ‘copies of letters written by council’. We believe that this is in breach of the Privacy Act and certainly unethical.
  • Who sent the documents to the Herald Sun? Why were these documents sent? One unavoidable conclusion has to be that this is just another  shot in the long running smear campaign?
  • What faith should residents therefore have in any ‘private’ information that this council holds about them and the adherence to both ethical and legal practice?

For those readers unfamiliar with the Information Privacy Act, we cite the following sections and ask that the actions of this administration be seen in the light of these.

The Information Privacy Act states (in part) in relation to the disclosure of information to a third party –

“An organisation must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose (the secondary purpose) other than the primary purpose of collection unless—

(a) both of the following apply—

(i) the secondary purpose is related to the primary purpose of collection and, if the personal information is sensitive information, directly related to the primary purpose of collection;

(ii) the individual would reasonably expect the organisation to use or disclose the information for the secondary purpose;or

(b) the individual has consented to the use or disclosure; or

(c) if the use or disclosure is necessary for research, or the compilation or analysis of statistics, in the public interest, other than for publication in a form that identifies any particular individual—

(i) it is impracticable for the organisation to seek the individual’s consent before the use or disclosure”

Glen Eira Council’s Privacy Policy also states: “Council will only use personal information within Council, or disclose it outside Council, for the purpose for which it was collected or in accordance with the Act (eg where it has obtained consent or where the person would reasonably expect this to occur)”.

 

June 15, 2012

News Flash: ‘All Charges Dismissed’

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

From Diamond Valley Leader

Magistrate dismisses Nillumbik councillor’s case

  • 15 Jun 12 @ 03:37pm by Raelene Wilson

CONFLICT of interest charges against a Nillumbik councillor were dismissed by a Heidelberg magistrate this afternoon.

Magistrate Michael Smith dismissed two charges against Cr Belinda Clarkson involving allegations she failed to declare a conflict of interest during confidential items discussed at a 2010 council meeting.

The Local Government and Compliance Inspectorate charged Cr Clarkson in July 2011 over the alleged breaches of the Local Government Act. Cr Clarkson denied the breaches, saying she believed she met conflict of interest exemptions under the Act.

COMMENT:

Our faith in the justice system has been fully restored with a decision in the Heidelberg Magistrate’s court today which dismissed all charges of conflict of interest against a Nillumbik Councillor. The brief background is that council had originally sent this councillor to a Conduct Panel. The councillor asserted her legal right to defend her reputation at VCAT. Nillumbik council, realising that the costs would be atronomical, withdrew. However, the Local Government Municipal Inspectorate then stepped in and laid charges that went to the Magistrate’s Court. Today, all these charges were thrown out and costs (which we estimate to be close to $200,000) awarded against the Inspectorate.

At the heart of this issue, which bears many similarities to the current witch-hunt against Penhalluriack, was the question of natural justice and the performance of administrators. It was quite illuminating to see the Nillumbik CEO in the witness stand sweating and mumbling under cross examination by Hore-Lacy trying to defend the indefensible and his role in the entire saga.

We only hope that this decision is a stern warning to all those who believe they can stomp on individual rights, ignore the basics of natural justice, and in the process waste hundreds and hundreds of thousands of ratepayer and taxpayer funds. The judgement also represents a stern warning to councillors who, as in the Nillumbik case, came out with egg on their face for their collusion in what was shown to be allegations without foundation.

 

June 14, 2012

Community Plan Presentations

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

Speaker #1: assumed that councillors had read the submission. Began with Open Space contributions and wondered how this was being used since it did not appear to be clearly stated, “so I can only assume that it’s being used for operation costs” and not to purchase land. Suggested that the Audit committee might want to have a look at this if it has been an ongoing practice. Next comment related to inappropriate development and the speaker reinforced the significance of structure plans which can lead to ‘best quality development’. Urged council not to dismiss this strategy. Congratulated council on GESAC but said that we’re now in the ‘post GESAC era’ and need to move on because there are other important projects to consider. Called for a ‘fresh look’ at the plan because it didn’t appear to be very different from earlier plans. It needed more ‘visionary concepts’, more ‘innovative concepts’. Stated that the Steering committee should have consulted with the people who took part in the forums ‘before rushing’ and felt this was the real problem – everything was rushed. Claimed that the council website ‘crashed regularly’. A new website was needed ‘that encompassed more than’ information about administration but that it include information on businesses, sports groups and culture. Said that there should be more stories ‘about community groups’ and more for the ‘disconnected and alone’.

Didn’t think the chamber was particularly welcoming and suggested that councillor’s motions could be put up on a screen, as could the amendments, so that the gallery knows what is being discussed or debated. A strong plea to establish ‘permanent community reference panels’ which would be regularly consulted and would cover everything from church groups to social and sporting groups. Finished by saying that ‘the negativity which runs consistently’ through the submissions should be listened to and not disregarded as a simple minority voice. Said that ‘these are community members who care enough to listen’, read the documents  and they should be heard.

SPEAKER#2: started by stating that after all the consultations, surveys and consultants’ reports overdevelopment, traffic, governance are issues that have been highlighted. These issues aren’t new and have been numerous times over the years. Stated that residents have been continually told that ‘council listens’, but it’s now past this listening phase and that it should be the time for action instead of merely listening. Didn’t think that the current draft plan tackled residents’ concerns. What was lacking were structure plans, height limits, parking plans, levies. Many of council’s policies go back over a decade and are ‘archaic’ and out of date. Concluded with the comment that the community plan provides what it calls ‘strategies’ but these aren’t strategies and ‘measures’ aren’t ‘measures’. Funding for things like drains has been cut, but this is what the community expects council to be doing. Action is what’s needed much more than listening.

SPEAKER #3: Agreed with the points made by earlier speakers. Stated that when council continually puts up rates there should also be a criteria and reporting on ‘productivity improvement’ which should match inflation. These should be reported on quarterly and with clear measures on how this has been achieved.

TANG then asked any of the presenters about one of the points made by GERA about parking permits in residential streets. Asked for examples and said that the ‘solution’ was not something he had been asked about before. One of the presenters responded by saying that currently residents can receive parking permits for adjacent streets regardless of how well these adjacent streets can meet demand. Resident requests for traffic counts have increased dramatically so parking and rat runs are a problem. Stonnington has a policy where new medium developments don’t get parking permits forcing developers to provide on site parking.

TANG asked the second speaker about developer contributions levies and that when Council removed it, it was because it was costing more to operate than the monies received. Said that the majority of councils had ‘got rid of it’ or don’t ‘administer it’. The speaker responded that the Government is probably going to introduce a ‘standardised one’. Another presenter stated that it would be about 8%.

TANG thanked submitters. Said that councillors now needed to go away and reflect on the submissions. Said that he didn’t think that the plan was ‘doing justice to the broader community consultation process’…’timeframe doesn’t allow us to take advantage’ (of committee and responses and that council should take some of community views) ‘on board’. There were also ‘ideological points’ that council would ‘have to grapple with’.  Stated that all the requested changes couldn’t all happen at once and they would have to be staggered over time. That priorities such as changing footpath expenditure to drains, or the pavilion strategy…’tough decisions there….we can’t do them all….some by re-prioritising’.

MAGEE: also thanked submitters and stated that putting things in writing is time consuming and ‘commendable’. Said that reading the submissions he thought that some of the suggestions council was already doing and that Glen Eira is a ‘very, very good council’. Admitted that it’s only over the past 18 months that he’s learnt ‘what it is to be a councillor’ and that the submissions ‘mean more’ to him now than when he first started as councillor. Believed that ‘I do genuinely listen when I’m told what’s wrong’…’we do have structure plans’…’it’s not policy on the run’ (advice they get is)’good advice’. Some of the suggestions put forward ‘make sense’….’there’s some good stuff in here’. Said that residents shouldn’t wait for formal submissions but contact councillors directly at all times.

HYAMS: also thanked submitters and those involved in consultation. Said that ‘there certainly are improvements that can be made to the plan’. The steering committee would meet on Thursday night. Further discussions would happen and ‘hope to adopt it’ on 26th June.

TANG: Said that the website update would hopefully address ‘some of the issues’ raised. Said he had some ideas that would be discussed with the committee.

 

June 13, 2012

Council & The Inviolability Of The Law!

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

We must admit to being quite amused when certain councillors start spouting the inviolability of the law in Glen Eira – especially planning law. We’ve already had instances of the nonsense surrounding ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’; the same is now happening with planning! It is sacrosanct ONLY WHEN IT SUITS. All one needs to do is look at countless recent planning decisions to see which standards and guidelines happen to be applied and which are conveniently ignored. To therefore turn around and argue that the Planning Scheme and its ‘prescriptions’ are set in concrete is hypocritical in the extreme.

We’ve also digressed from our usual format in that we’ve added a slight commentary to some of the statements made by councillors in this post. It concerns Item 9.1 – The 3 storey Glen Huntly Rd development. Apologies for the length, but it’s important that residents receive the full picture of what went on last night.

Penhalluriack: Stated that the motion ‘concerned’ him and that he moved it be adjourned until next council meeting. There was no seconder.

TANG: Moved, with changes – permit granted (3 storeys and 12 dwellings). Motion amended to include 40 square metres of open space for some of the units. Pilling seconded. Tang began by saying that this was a ‘difficult’ application because it is ‘unique’ in that an ‘agreement’ had been reached between the developer and immediate neighbours. His motion is “not in accordance with the agreement reached’ between the developer and neighbours and that he is urging the upholding of ResCode requirements (Ie open space). Mentioned some of the objections (parking, visual bulk, etc) made by objectors. Talked about “applying planning scheme’ such as ‘increased set backs’. Said that increased open space and set backs helps to ‘try and preserve Glen Eira’s streetscape’. ….Said that the ‘agreement tries to address the primary concerns’ of people adjacent to the site and this is a ‘novel way’ of addressing their concerns. But ‘where I have an issue (with this is that) we need to first apply our town planning policy’….(and) ‘have regard to the objections of all ….’we can put weight on the objections’ (from immediate neighbours)…..(prefers the council way since this) ‘allows all objectors the opportunity if they wish to appeal the decision’ (and if there are amended plans these will go to all parties who objected) …’If any other objector who hasn’t been a party to this agreement (therefore approving the agreement) ‘would I think result in those parties having an unfair disadvantage’ (sic)….

COMMENT: Wouldn’t this very same principle apply regardless of whether the ‘agreement’ between developer and neighbours was passed by council in that the objectors who disagree with this would then have the opportunity to go to VCAT?

PILLING: Noted that this is along a tram corridor. Supported the motion because it ‘improved’ on private open space . Thought that the ‘agreement’ was a ‘bit presumptious’  and ‘we need to follow proper process’ and that this ‘would set a poor precedent’.

ESAKOFF: supported. ‘I think to do anything else would be very bad precedent’….(agreement) ‘doesn’t meet council’s transition policy’ (which is there to) ‘protect’ (residents in Housing Diversity Areas, although this policy is) ‘yet to be adopted, I understand that’. Said that in the past VCAT have ‘tended to agree’ (with this abuttal issue in that )’there does need to be sensitive planning and good set back”…..’and vcat has actually supported us in the past on various  applications’….’problem….on principle I feel disinclined to do that (go back)….’we need to maintain that policy…it would set a terrible precedent and would continue all along our Housing Diversity Areas’. Said that the ‘problem’ will continue along Balaclava Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, etc. ‘along all our tram routes’….’the amenity of the properties which sit behind these developments needs to be protected’

COMMENT: such concern – yet all that the ‘Transitions policy proposes is a setback NOT A ZONE. Thus a single storey house can still have double or triple, or worse, levels peering into people’s backyards under this ‘guidelines’! Why not a zone, councillors? Election time is definitely closing in!

LIPSHUTZ: Started off by saying that at first he was inclined to agree with the officers recommendations ‘but then I ….thought about it longer’ and he will now support the Tang motion. ‘We have laws’ (that have to be obeyed)….’if we allow the objectors …to make private arrangements…then we’ve got no policy…. (people think) ‘we’re allowing our suburbs to be ruined’….’we’re fighting very hard against that’ (but if this arrangement goes ahead) ‘we will be giving away everything we have fought for for so many years’. (The transitions policy is for all areas)…..’yes it’s unfortunate’ (in this case but) ‘the bigger picture is that we have to look at our policy’ (and make sure that all properties are safeguarded)…’because we’re here to protect our neighbourhood not just one particular property’….’I had to think very hard about that’….

COMMENT: Amazing how ‘flexible’ this policy can be when it suits! So much for the “law”. This would of course explain why so many car parking waivers are granted; why of late, disabled parking is turned into visitor car parking spaces, and why 20 or 8 storey proposals in various areas are okay. That’s surely ‘protecting neighbourhoods isn’t it Cr Lipshutz?

PENHALLURIACK: Said this application ‘concerned’ him ‘because we are turning our back on what (residents) want…we are elected to represent our constituents’. Speculated that if the developer and neighbours had got together before the application went in, that there wouldn’t be ‘any fuss’ and ‘probably go straight through’. Said that the only dangerous precedent set here would be ‘in ignoring’ what people want and ‘then applying from the outside some policies’. Stated that he’d met with the two couples living behind the development. His concerns were ‘assuaged’ because they had ‘professional advice’ (town planner) ‘and they were happy with that development’ and it’s ‘foolhardy to go against’ what constituents want.

TANG: question to Penhalluriack on the other 31 objectors. ‘how would you correlate giving the constituents what they want without dealing with the other 31 objectors’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘that’s why I moved for this to be adjourned for 3 weeks’ so that the views of the other objectors can be sought during this time ‘and hopefully consensus reached without the cost’ of VCAT.

ESAKOFF: another question to Penhalluriack. ‘If a similar deal….in a minimal change area….(where limit is 2 dwellings)….if the neighbours agreed to that would you also agree to that (ie 4, 5 or more dwellings) ‘and not see that as a precedent’?

PENHALLURIACK: Answered that the transiition isn’t yet a policy and still needs to be ‘ratified by Council’. ‘If it’s going against the town planning requirements then of course it will be a precedent’.

MAGEE: Said that this application probably was ’12 months in the planning’ and that it now ‘seems odd that at the 12th hour’ there’s this agreement and people ‘doing deals’. There has been a planning conference, numerous opportunities for developers, architects and objectors to be in touch, ‘we run a great risk in our city being planned on the run’…..’I can only assess this application on what I read…..’not privy’ (to the conversations between developer and neighbours or objectors)….’all I’ve got to go on here is what I read and what I hear from around the table….(didn’t like the fact that after all this time there is now this ‘agreement’ and) ‘it doesn’t sit well with me’….’this is something they should have done four months ago, not 24 hours ago’.

COMMENT: Dereliction of duty perhaps? Hard to believe that of 33 objectors none contacted councillors directly! If this is the first that Cr Magee knows about the application, then we suspect that either he has not taken the time to familiarise himself properly with the issues, or that the entire process of delegation to officers is inadequate when the decision makers have very little notion of what is going on!

HYAMS: Was also at the meeting with objectors living behind the development. ‘we made sure they knew what they were doing’….’they knew what they were doing’…(seeing this as) ‘the lesser of two evils’…..’I was inclined to go along with it, then I started thinking about the implications of that….’if we do accept this deal which is less than what we hoped for with our transition zones…..(and this area will be further developed and that policy states that) ‘applications have to respect their surroundings we might be setting a precedent for other neighbours’. Some of the other 33 objectors mightn’t feel greatly affected but ‘most would feel that they prefer 12 units to 14’. Said it was ‘unusual’ that objectors want something that is ‘less strict’ on the developer. Referred to Penhalluriack’s point about representing contituents ‘when it comes to planning we are actually elected to apply planning law’ (as well as representing people and who are likely to have) ‘other developments built near them’….(Said that they’re still waiting for permission to exhibit the transition policy and therfore can’t be seen to be) ‘backing away from it’. Said that the ‘philosophy set out in that policy is actually council policy’.

COMMENT: top marks for gobbledygook must go to Hyams’ last cited comment.

TANG: In response to Magee’s points about timelines, Tang said that ‘council does offer opportunities to get together’ BEFORE via the ‘pre certification process’.(so that developers can amend the application before it goes any further and there’s a formal application)…..’The agreement does support 14 dwellings in an altered configuration’ but doesn’t ‘talk about….visitor parking….agreement may deal with a couple of the primary objections….it doesn’t deal with all of those….(He then went on to address ‘misconceptions’ in that ‘half of Glen Eira’s policies’ (ie Housing diversity versus minimal sites) and that the transitions policy tries to add some ‘prescription, tries to give certainty and further guidance’. (The policy therefore needs to apply here and a lot of work has been done to ensure that the site is appropriate to the neighbourhood)…..’there is a mediation process at vcat’ (which will avoid costs and could be ‘cut off at the pass’ at this mediation ‘point’).

MOTION CARRIED WITH ONLY PENHALLURIACK VOTING AGAINST.

 

June 12, 2012

A Brief Report

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

Tonight’s Council Meeting was frankly disappointing in terms of the overall turnout of residents. Of the 20 plus submissions on the Council/Community Plan, only three people addressed council whilst most of the submitters were not present in chambers. Whether unforseen circumstances prevented their appearance and presentation (ie Friends of Caulfield Park had expressed the desire to address council) or whether residents after years and years of submitting their thoughts, ideas, and aspirations, only to have nothing come from their efforts, thought in the end, it was a useless exercise, we do not pretend to know. However, as the saying goes, the outcomes of the submissions are what’s important and residents will undoubtedly judge council on this basis. We will report in greater detail on the presentations in the next day or so.

Of immediate interest are the two development applications which together drew approximately 110 objections – the Glen Huntly Road, and the Gilmour St, Bentleigh proposals. We believe that the debate on these two applications illustrated precisely what is amiss with Glen Eira Council, its Planning Scheme, and how reluctant councillors are to challenge the current (hidden) agendas. The Glen Huntly Rd applications basically accepted the officers’ recommendation, whilst the Gilmour St application reduced the number of dwellings to one double storey and two single storeys.

Penhalluriack made two ‘suggestions’ – to defer decision on the Glen Huntly application. There was no seconder. His request for a report on the Exeloo toilets and for a cost/benefit analysis that included maintenance costs, and graffiti removal costs, was defeated. Magee seconded.

In the coming days we will present a detailed account of the arguments so that residents may judge for themselves the contradictions, the grandstanding, and the innumerable lapses in logic.

PS: It’s also worth mentioning that the game of verbal gymnastics continues unabated. 3 councillors continually referred to the “transitions policy” as a “transition ZONE”. We remind readers that nothing could be further from the truth. This is NOT A ZONE. It merely creates setbacks for those properties abutting Minimal Change Areas. To call this a ZONE is not only misleading, but we contend, deliberately mischievious. If councillors do not even know what they are voting for, then we are all in real trouble. If they do know, then their obfuscation of the truth is unacceptable.

 

June 8, 2012

What Residents Think

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

Just some extracts from the first few submissions. We will put up others shortly.

  1. “ One only example of the continuing entrenched systemic culture of intentional poor governance. Repeated unfair treatment of lies, misleading deception, misrepresentation, secrecy, lack of openness, transparency, genuine accountability, responsibility, honesty, integrity, or good faith”…..”Any rate rise above CPI is excessive.”
  2. “Everything that I’ve loved about living in this area has now gone and been destroyed. A lot of the blame I think is because of the way you councillors have allowed development to happen without really thinking about what it does to ordinary families like mine…..”I just want you to know that you as councillors will have to have it on your conscience about what you’re doing to people. There’s lots that you could do but you’re not doing anything worthwhile that I can see will help families. It’s all for the developers and nothing in the plan will stop this.”
  3. “My husband and I would like Option 2 (Passive Recreational Space) we both feel that we are already adequately served with various sporting facilities and spaces within the City of Glen Eira.”
  4. “The projected population/household increases need to be managed by Council and not driven by developers. It would be better to have more two or three single storey units per site which is more in line with why people chose to live in Caulfield/Glen Eira. The livability of the municipality can not accommodate any more inappropriate jerry-built future slums with their associated traffic and litter issues.”
  5. “the area should be developed as a Australian Native Garden”
  6. “The interviews/focus groups sample and factor analysis has given us some information. The on-line survey had Five relevant/pertinent questions, the forums as noted by me previously asked question re issues.concerns not priorities. We should be aiming for consistency of information sought across all groups.”
  7. “”The apparent use of Pulbic Open Space levies by GE Council to maintain open space is entirely wrong. It disadvantages both developers and the public. Open space levies should be used exclusively to fund the acquisition of open space. Maintenance costs for parks should be funded from operational budgets…..Shortly after the period of consultation for the Community Plan began, I downloaded all of the documents, which included a Community Plan 2008-2013. I struggled to understand why we were asked to consider this document but continued to refer to it. Today (June 5th) I discovered that the plan on-line has recently been replaced with a document titled the “Glen Eira Community Plan”. There is no date on the plan and therefore I do not know the years it intended to cover. I assume however that this is the document GE Council wants me to read…..My initial impression is that most of the plan is filled with motherhood statements – and fails to acknowledge and address the key concerns of the community being, inappropriate development and the impact of rates….When will GE Council introduce Structure Plans for its three significant activity centres?….When will GE Council introduce the Local Law that permits a Notice of Motion? When will GE Councillors be trained to use the microphone and to speak loudly enough to be heard by all sitting in the public gallery? Will GE Council consider establishing S86 committees as Community reference Panels to include those community members who wish to be involved in decision-making processes of GE Council?….Will GE Council introduce a policy whereby no trees will be removed without an opportunity for community feedback and without presenting the findings of the experts that advise removal?…Will GE council introduce a scheme whereby Victoria Seniors Cards are accepted for discount rates (albeit this may only be a off-peak) providing access for Card Holders to GE Faciliting including GESAC as at other aquatic centres around Victoria?”
 

June 8, 2012

Cram ‘Em In!

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

The agenda papers for Tuesday night’s council meeting are choka block. It’s becoming something of a trend that all the really important items are quite often crammed into one meeting agenda. In contrast to last meeting, we now have:

  • Several contentious planning applications
  • Several amendments
  • Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why? (Another PS: We’ve been informed that the GERA submission via email did not arrive. It can still be inserted into the agenda for Tuesday).
  • A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is now well over $2 million  and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Perhaps this latter item is the reason that the accountants can now claim that the “liquidity ratio” is still around 1?
  • An officer’s report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!

We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.

Finally, in light of a recent VCAT member’s comments on the lack of Council notification to residents about applications, the same old game is going on. This includes: 11 properties and 12 notifications resulting in 33 objections; another one is 9 properties and 10 notifications resulting in 75 objections and 2 petitions. The patterns of inverse correlations are alive and well in Glen Eira!

The agenda papers for Tuesday night’s council meeting are choka block. It’s becoming something of a trend that all the really important items are quite often crammed into one meeting agenda. In contrast to last meeting, we now have:

  • Several contentious planning applications
  • Several amendments
  • Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why?
  • A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is not well over $2 million  and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Again, perhaps this is the reason that the accountants can now claim that Council’s Working Capital Ratio at the end of April is suddenly sitting at 2.24!!!
  • An officers report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!

We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is again just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.

Finally, in light of a recent VCAT member’s comments on the lack of Council notification to residents about applications, the same old game is going on. This includes: 11 properties and 12 notifications resulting in 33 objections; another one is 9 properties and 10 notifications resulting in 75 objections and 2 petitions. The patterns of inverse correlations are alive and well in Glen Eira!

PS: we’ve had a closer look at the Glen Huntly Rd application for 14 units. The Ron Torres report informs readers that this is in a Housing Diversity Area, along tram lines, but abutts a Minimal Change Area. So far, so good. What we do have an issue with is the (deliberately?) misleading language. Torres for example refers to the whizz bang proposed c90 Amendment (transition zone) and states: “Council’s proposed Amendement C90 (Transition Sites in Housing Diversity  abutting a Minimal Change Area) sets prescriptive measures to achieve development respectful of the character of adjoining  sites in Minimal Change Areas”.  Yet, when one looks back to the minutes of August 30th 2011, we find that this Amendment is described as “Through this proposed amendment Council is seeking to reinforce and add clarity by introducing and adding prescription to the above policy requirement.  However, if approved, it would still be (only) a policy and not a control”.

Subtle, but also misleading! Next the Torres report goes on to argue that the conditions imposed would make things all right. However, these conditions do NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES ON TRAM LINES AS STATED IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. The Amendment specifically states “The threshold position does not apply to sites located along a tram route …”. Isn’t it time that the reports written by officers were 100% accurate and that the language used wasn’t designed to mislead and deceive?

 

June 6, 2012

Community Plan/Budget: Short On ‘Solutions’

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

The draft Community Plan deserves credit for highlighting the problems and issues which will, and already are, impacting dramatically on residents. One doesn’t need a crystal ball to realise that traffic management, planning, and open space are key concerns. The Community Plan has this to say on these matters:

Population/Planning: “Additional dwellings required to support population changes in the future will impact upon Council’s town planning, traffic, parking, assets and infrastructure services. The appropriateness of new development and maintaining heritage of local housing continues to be a strong concern of local residents. Council needs to work with the State Government to ensure Victorian planning controls appropriately balance the needs of current and future residents.”

Traffic: “The Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity 2009 (VISTA) commissioned by the Department of Transport reveals that 72 per cent of all trips in Glen Eira during a weekday are undertaken as a car driver or passenger, ten per cent use public transport, 15 per cent walking and two per cent use a bicycle. These facts reveal opportunities to target and promote sustainable transport options”.

So, what STRATEGIES, what actions, what performance measures and what investment does the budget and the Strategic Resource Plan propose in order to address and resolve these ‘problems’. Sadly, very little. The above quotes are a good indication of how bereft, and unwilling, council is to tackle the core of the problem rather than merely tinkering with the edges. Planning should be about more than ‘maintaining heritage’ or working with government. It needs to ensure that the Planning Scheme has done everything it possibly can to ‘appropriately balance the needs of current and future residents’. There is no mention of this in the Action Plan apart from the very limited C87 and the ‘transition’ policy – already rubber stamped! Nor will the creation of 4 speed humps per year solve the growing problem of rat runs through local residential streets. If ‘safety’ is the primary concern, then much, much more needs to be planned and budgeted for. Residents should really ask: how many traffic lights have been installed; how many pedestrian crossings; how many roundabouts; how many splitter islands in the past two years?

The most obvious failing of these plans is the inability (or perhaps deliberate) blurring of what constitutes a strategy and an objective. We maintain that very few ‘strategies’ exist. The community/council plan is loaded with lofty goals, but is short on feasible, comprehensive strategies. The result is a complete lack of integration between goals, strategies and performance measures. Yet, heading after heading proudly states ‘strategy’. The following are NOT strategies – they are warm, fluffy, motherhood statements undoubtedly intended to provide the illusion that something is actually being done. We ask readers: are these ‘strategies’?

  • Improve safety and movement of road users and provide a fair and equitable balance of parking.
  • Improve road safety and manage congestion on the local road network.
  • Plan for a mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in different stages of their life-cycle within the City.
  • Ensure new multi-dwelling residential development is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character in Glen Eira’s minimal change areas
  • Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process.
  • Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.

The list goes on an on. None are carefully laid out strategies that clarify, detail, nor provide clear criteria against which performance may be evaluated in the Action Plan and its ‘measures’. The result will be more of the same – a budget and council/community plan big on rhetoric, but failing in action and appropriate funding.

 

June 5, 2012

VCAT: More Council Failures?

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

Readers may remember a highly contentious planning application for 1a Albany Court, North Caulfield. This was for the extension of numbers and access for a synagogue. The gallery was full of objectors and the decision by councillors was split. This has now gone (again) to VCAT in the hope to extend the pedestrian carriageway. The full VCAT decision may be accessed at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/669.html

We present some extracts from the member’s decision which highlights the fact that Council:

  • Hasn’t sought enforcement orders for continual breaches of the permit
  • Hasn’t bothered to notify residents of this new application

“The Council explained there had been a synagogue (shul) operating at 1A Albany Court for a number of years without planning approval.”

“Nearby residents oppose this application for two main reasons. The first reason is the history of non-compliance by the permit applicant with the planning scheme (for operating an illegal synagogue); with the current planning permit (for erecting a walkway that is not on the land to which the permit applies); and other non-compliance with permit conditions. This is not a matter that I can deal with as this application is not an enforcement proceeding for compliance with the planning permit.”

“The Council initially opposed this amendment but during the hearing advised it no longer opposed this because the amendment is a relatively minor requirement. On the face of it, the creation of an easement may be considered a secondary aspect of this proposal. However, it is also an aspect for which separate planning permission is required and the Council needs to then determine if material detriment may result that necessitates the giving of public notice. As the planning application lodged with the Council has not been processed, I am not aware if the Council made a decision on this aspect of the processing of the application. In any event, the notification given as part of this section 87A application was limited to four properties at 2 and 3 Albany Court, 4 Grimwade Court and 18 Kambea Grove. If notice was required as part of a planning application, it would have been to at least the adjoining properties (as the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires), and the notification undertaken by the Applicant in this case does not include all properties adjoining 2 St Aubins Avenue. Further, the extent of notification given in this application did not include all persons who originally objected, nor the persons who were originally notified of the proposed synagogue at 1 and 1A Albany Court (as identified in the Council’s Practice Note material provided to the Tribunal after lodgement of this application). For all of these reasons, I am not persuaded it is appropriate to include the additional planning permission for the creation of an easement in this permit”

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »